Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2007-08 Implementation Monitoring Committee
Annual Report
1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement Treaty Land Entitlement
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
INTRODUCTION 4
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MFA 14Statistical Monitoring 14Strategic Planning and Identification of Priorities 26
IMPROVEMENTS IN IMC ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICES 27
SUMMARY OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE RESOLVED 29
SUMMARY OF CURRENT ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE NOT RESOLVED 31
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION 36
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IMC CHAIRPERSON 41
SUMMARY COMMENTS 44
SUMMARY OF APPENDICES 46
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
4
Eleven years ago, on May 29, 1997, the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, Inc. (referred to as the
“TLEC”), the organization established by 19 First Nations in Manitoba with entitlement to additional land under
Treaties 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10, entered into an agreement with Canada and Manitoba to secure additional Reserve land
owed to those First Nations under their Treaties with Canada called the Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty
Land Entitlement (referred to either as the “Framework Agreement” or “MFA”).
Canada had long recognized that many Manitoba First Nations had not received the amount of land to be set aside as “Reserve” under the various Treaties in Manitoba. While Canada retained administration and control of the Crown Land within Manitoba, Canada was free to set apart land as reserve as it was selected by First Nations entitled to land for that purpose under Treaties. Treaties and adhesions to Treaties continued in Manitoba from 1871 until 1910
MAY 29, 1997 Signing Ceremony of the Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty Land Entitlement (MFA)
when the last adhesions to Treaty 5 were signed in the northern part of the Province. Accordingly, Canada was aware of its outstanding Treaty obligations when it was decided by Canada that it would transfer administration and control of Crown Land within the Province to the Crown in right of Manitoba in 1930. In fact, at the time of the transfer of administration and control of the land and resources from Canada to Manitoba under the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
5
signed on December 14, 1929, which became effective July 15, 1930 (now Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act, 1930) (more commonly referred to as the “MNRTA” in this Report), Canada formally advised Manitoba of its estimates of outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement
INDIAN RESERVES
11. All lands included in Indian reserves within the Province, including those
selected and surveyed but not yet confirmed, as well as those confirmed, shall
continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of
Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the Province will from time to time,
upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of
the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration, such further
areas as the said Superintendent General may, in agreement with the Minister
of Mines and Natural Resources of the Province, select as necessary to enable
Canada to fulfil its obligations under the treaties with the Indians of the Province,
and such areas shall thereafter be administered by Canada in the same way in all
respects as if they had never passed to the Province under the provisions hereof.
or “TLE”. Further, in paragraph 11 of that agreement, Canada reserved the right to select Crown Land to be transferred back to Canada to enable it to fulfill its Treaty obligations:
Significant progress in addressing the outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement obligation was not made until after the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgment in an aboriginal title case advanced by the Nisga’a of British Columbia in 1969 in Calder v. Attorney-General of B.C., [1973] S.C.R. 313. Shortly after Calder v. Attorney-General of B.C., Canada established its first claims policy and an Office of Native Claims. Canada also began to provide funding assistance to First Nations or their organizations to research and examine claims, including TLE. In Manitoba, this work was initially done within the organization then known as the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and ultimately, as it is today, by the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba, Inc. or by First Nations directly. Claims to additional TLE were prepared and submitted to Canada in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
After the recognition by Canada of most of the TLE claims submitted by Manitoba First Nations, negotiations took place which resulted in a comprehensive “agreement in principle” (AIP) in 1984. However, for various reasons, Canada, Manitoba and the First Nations decided not to proceed with the 1984 AIP shortly after its execution. It was not until early 1991, that the First Nations and Canada agreed to renew TLE negotiations on a comprehensive basis, at which time 19 of the then 26 First Nations with recognized outstanding TLE rights agreed to a coordinated approach to negotiations via their corporate body, the TLEC. The negotiations were undertaken on a dual bi-lateral basis; that is:
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
6
• the TLEC negotiated TLE with Canada in recognition of the basis of the Crown/First Nation Treaty relationship, and
• Canada negotiated with Manitoba on the basis of the Crown/Crown relationship reflected in paragraph 11 of the MNRTA.
The Framework Agreement was the result of the dual bi-lateral negotiations conducted over a five year period ending in May 1997. All of the 19 First Nations comprising the membership of the TLEC were entitled to individually choose to accept the terms of the MFA and, if so, enter into a specific Treaty Entitlement Agreement (referred to as a “TEA”) with Canada and Manitoba. After the MFA, two of the original 19 First Nations decided to split into two additional First Nations, with the result that there are now 21 First Nations entitled to sign agreements under the Framework Agreement located throughout Manitoba. See the map illustrating the location of the First Nations entitled to enter into TEAs under the MFA attached as Appendix A.
Under the terms of the MFA, the combined 19 (now 21) Entitlement First Nations secured entitlement to an additional 1,100,626 acres of Reserve (approximately 1,720 square miles of land). Circumstances encountered during the negotiations led to the distinction between the selection of Crown Land as anticipated by the Treaties and the purchase or “acquisition” of private land on the open market as set out in Chart 1. Although all of the First Nations secured entitlement to select Crown Land, six of the First Nations in southern and western Manitoba were provided funds to purchase a portion of their TLE on the open market due to the lack of insufficient unoccupied Crown Land available in the vicinity of their existing Reserve land base. Accordingly, if all 21 First Nations entered into agreements, they would be entitled to select a total of 985,949 acres of provincial Crown Land for Reserve. In addition, the Brokenhead Ojibway, Buffalo Point, Opaskwayak Cree, Rolling River, Sapotaweyak and Wuskwi Sipihk Cree First Nations are entitled to purchase or otherwise acquire the balance
of 114,677 acres of land for Reserve.
1 Canada declared a division of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation after the MFA settlement, accordingly, adding the Marcel Colomb Cree Nation (as of March 30, 1999) and the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation (as of November 25, 2005) to the list of MFA Entitlement First Nations. As of March 31, 2008, these two “new” First Nations had not executed TEAs under the MFA.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
7
Chart 1: Amount of Crown Land and Other Land for Entitlement First Nations under the Manitoba Framework Agreement
ENTITLEMENT FIRST NATIONSTREATY
NUMBER
CROWN LAND
(ACRES)
OTHER LAND
(ACRES)TOTAL (ACRES)
BARREN LANDS 10 66,420 66,420
BROKENHEAD 1 4,344 10,137 14,481
BUFFALO POINT 3 3,432 607 4,039
BUNIBONIBEE 5 35,434 35,434
FOX LAKE 5 26,391 26,391
GOD’S LAKE 5 42,600 42,600
MANTO SIPI 5 8,725 8,725
MARCEL COLOMB 6 17,007 17,007
MATHIAS COLOMB 6 217,364 217,364
NISICHAWAYASIHK 5 61,761 61,761
NORTHLANDS 10 94,084 94,084
NORWAY HOUSE 5 104,784 104,784
OPASKWAYAK 5 47,658 8,410 56,068
O-PIPON-NA-PIWIN 5 17,674 17,674
ROLLING RIVER 4 2,356 44,756 47,112
SAPOTAWEYAK 4 108,134 36,045 144,179
SAYSI DENE 5 22,372 22,372
SHAMATTAWA 5 24,912 24,912
WAR LAKE 5 7,156 7,156
WUSKWI SIPIHK 4 44,168 14,722 58,890
YORK FACTORY 5 29,173 29,173
TOTAL 985,949 114,677 1,100,626
The First Nations anticipated significant social, cultural and economic opportunities associated with the ability to acquire land for Reserve in the present day. Many First Nations have embarked on a considered and decidedly specific process of land selection to secure reserve for social, cultural and economic reasons including residential development, economic development, protection of cultural and historical land, tourism purposes and traditional uses considered of importance to their communities.
For example:
• Rolling River First Nation: Land Purchase:
Rolling River First Nation is located in the “rolling hills”, the backdrop for the Riding Mountain National Park, only a three hour drive from Winnipeg and a 15 minute drive to the Park. Rolling River First Nation purchased a 158 acre parcel of land located on Provincial Trunk Highway 10 which leads into the Park. Purchased in 1999 for its economic and development potential associated with the Park tourist traffic, the Rolling River First Nation has to date developed a locally owned gas bar, VLT lounge and health center on this site set apart as Reserve on May 29, 2006.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
8
• Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation: Crown Land Selection:
Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation is located in the Swan River Valley approximately a five hour drive from Winnipeg and only an hour drive north of the Town of Swan River. Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation selected 226.18 acres of Crown Land located on Provincial Trunk Highway 10 (PTH 10) and the edge of Porcupine Mountain Provincial Forest 1999. The Selection was chosen for its residential, economic and development potential, its location near the main reserve and proximity to the Porcupine Mountain Provincial Forest and PTH 10. Since selecting the property, the Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation has developed a residential area with housing for its members and a locally owned gas bar and grocery store.
July 2002: Smoking fish at Leftrook Lake.
• Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: Crown Land Selection:
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation is located approximately 800 km north-west of Winnipeg and only 80 km west of the City of Thompson, the hub of the North. Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation’s 1,000 acre Crown Land selection known as Monahawuhkan (previously named Birch Tree Brook) has enormous economic potential, boasts waterfront property and is situated at the junction point of PR 391 and PR 280. This parcel was selected in May 2000 with economic development in mind and is located just outside the City of Thompson. This Crown Land selection will allow Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation to capitalize on the steady flow of travelers as well as the spin-offs associated with the new hydro electric developments in Northern Manitoba. Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation plans include the future establishment of a First Nation Economic Development Zone just outside the boundaries of Thompson.
• Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: Crown Land Selection:
Located approximately 30 km northeast of the main NCN Reserve, the Wapasihk (Leftrook Lake) site was selected for the cultural experience it could offer. This pristine lake is utilized by community members for cultural and spiritual activities such as hunting, gathering, fishing, recreation, ceremonial purposes and was considered a prime location to teach the youth and community at large about the rich cultural heritage found in Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation customs and traditions, as shown in the photos below. Originally selected as compensation lands under the Northern Flood Agreement related to the impacts of Hydro electric development, Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation has maximized the benefits of TLE by selecting additional land at this location under their TEA.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
9
NCN Elder teaching youth how to sew.
July 2002: from left to right Stan Hnatiuk, INAC Environmental Officer, Wilson Moore and Felix Walker, NCN Representatives, Ed Vystrcil, TLEC Associate Director, and Taras Tataryn, INAC Survey Technologist, conducting Environmental Site Assessment at Leftrook Lake.
As of March 31, 2008, 15 of the 21 First Nations entitled to enter into TEAs to secure additional TLE (these First Nations are referred to as “Entitlement First Nations” or “EFNs”) have entered into a TEA. For various reasons, six First Nations have chosen not to enter into TEAs to date. However, after further discussions this past year, a number of these First Nations have expressed an interest in considering entering into TEAs under the MFA. They are at different stages of discussion in the Land Selection Study (“LSS”) and Community Approval Process (“CAP”) established under the MFA for signing TEAs.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
10
Chart 2: Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
ENTITLEMENT FIRST NATIONDATE TREATY ENTITLEMENT AGREEMENT
(TEA) SIGNED
BARREN LANDS FIRST NATIONJune 23, 1999
BROKENHEAD OJIBWAY NATIONSeptember 9, 1998
BUFFALO POINT FIRST NATIONMarch 24, 1998
BUNIBONIBEE CREE NATION(Formerly known as Oxford House Cree Nation) February 17, 1999
GOD’S LAKE FIRST NATION May 28, 1999
MANTO SIPI CREE NATION(Formerly known as God’s River Cree Nation) May 19, 1999
MATHIAS COLOMB CREE NATION October 1, 2003
NISICHAWAYASIHK CREE NATION(Formerly known as Nelson House Cree Nation) September 1, 1998
NORTHLANDS FIRST NATION November 9, 1999
NORWAY HOUSE CREE NATIONNovember 12, 1998
OPASKWAYAK CREE NATIONJanuary 22, 1999
ROLLING RIVER FIRST NATIONMarch 6, 1998
SAPOTAWEYAK CREE NATIONSeptember 1, 1998
WAR LAKE FIRST NATIONMay 28, 1999
WUSKWI SIPIHK CREE NATIONJune 9, 1998
The First Nations that have not signed TEAs continue to have outstanding TLE rights. As recently as the IMC meeting held March 20, 2008, both Canada and Manitoba affirmed that they remained prepared to enter into agreements with the six First Nations, if the First Nations are prepared to confirm in writing their willingness to proceed with the CAP required by the MFA. In addition, the TLEC has affirmed it is ready and willing to assist these First Nations in gaining an understanding of the MFA and planning for a CAP.
During the MFA negotiations, Canada had estimated that the average period of time from the date of Selection or Acquisition of a parcel of land to the date the land was set apart as Reserve by Order in Council took, on average, 2.97 years. However, it appears that this estimated time period has, among other things, been impacted by the volume of TLE settlements and parcels of land going through the process of Reserve creation
in Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada. The average time period for Reserve creation today is both unknown and uncertain. All Parties have at times expressed concern that the period appears to be growing longer, rather than shorter, if measured by progress under the MFA over the last 11 years.
After 11 years of implementation, the Parties to the MFA have managed to succeed in setting apart some 187,538 acres of land for Reserve comprised of 58 separate parcels of land. This represents approximately 19% of the overall TLE of the 15 Entitlement First Nations that have signed agreements under the MFA. Of the total amount of Reserve set apart to date, some 140,466 acres comprised of 25 separate parcels of land (about 75% of the total acreage) were set apart as Reserve this past year, in 2007, supported by the mandates of both the Minister of Indian Affairs for Canada and the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs affirmed on
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
11
August 22, 2006. This standing Ministerial direction to improve and accelerate the Reserve creation process for land claim settlements in Manitoba has greatly impacted the overall fulfillment of the MFA objectives and has proven essential at times in dealing with impediments to implementation encountered on a day to day basis.
The MFA provided detailed guidelines in the form of Principles for Land Selection and Acquisition to provide direction for the First Nations in their Crown Land selection and purchase of private land. Canada and Manitoba agreed that land selected or purchased/acquired in accordance with the Principles would be eligible to be set apart as Reserve provided the requirements of the MFA were satisfied. If and when issues or matters in dispute arose, the MFA also provided a detailed process for resolution of any issues or matters in dispute, a structure for doing so, guidelines for means and methods for doing so, suggested timelines and procedures as well as a formal body – the Implementation Monitoring Committee (referred to as the “IMC”) – to supervise problem resolution, oversee implementation, report on implementation and recommend improvements as necessary over time. The IMC was to be and has been assisted by an independent Chairperson appointed by the Parties.
Early last year, after an increasing level of First Nation frustration with the pace of implementation of land claim settlements and TLE in Manitoba, within the context of the Ministerial mandates and following upon the report of the implementation of the MFA issued by the federal Auditor General in November 2005, the IMC agreed upon a special initiative to assist them in improving the MFA implementation process – the establishment of a separate office of the independent Chairperson of the IMC. This initiative has proven to be a positive step in ensuring a more effective IMC as anticipated by the MFA. Although significant challenges to implementation continue to exist and will exist throughout the exercise, the IMC Representatives are working diligently on several areas identified for improvement in the various interrelated elements of implementation, including information management, communications, working relationships, a range of implementation procedures and guidelines, monitoring of Reserve creation and dispute resolution.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
12
This Report is intended to inform the Parties of the progress in implementation of the MFA, the issues faced by the Parties during the past fiscal year, the areas for improvement that have been identified and the steps being taken to build on opportunities for improvement. On behalf of the IMC, the Chairperson of the IMC must provide an Annual Report to the President of the TLEC, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for Canada and the Minister of Northern Affairs for Manitoba by June 30th each year during MFA implementation, including:
(i) a summary of the progress of implementation of the MFA and any TEA;
(ii) the recommendations of the IMC for the improvement of the implementation of the MFA and any TEA;
(iii) a summary of the issues or matters in dispute which have been resolved during the reporting period;
(iv) a summary of the issues or matters in dispute still outstanding at the end of the reporting period;
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING COMMITTEEFront: Rod McLeod, Chairperson, Geneviève Boudreau, Assistant Chairperson, Nelson Genaille (TLEC)Back: Emmanuel Atiomo (Canada) Carl Braun (TLEC), Rick Kosmick (Manitoba), Dave Hicks (Manitoba), Edgar Rasmussen
(v) recommendations for improvement of the implementation of the MFA and any TEA; and
(vi) an unaudited annual statement including;a. all funds received by the IMC from the parties during the fiscal year ;b. a statement of how those funds were distributed; and c. a statement of all contributions in kind to the costs of the IMC.
Under the terms of the MFA, the IMC is comprised of five members, two representatives appointed by the TLEC, one representative appointed by each of Canada and Manitoba and an independent Chairperson. The Chairperson is appointed by the consensus of the President of the TLEC (First Nations), the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Manitoba) and either of the Regional Director General of INAC Manitoba or the Assistant Deputy Minister of INAC (Canada).
As of March 31, 2008, the IMC representatives, alternate representatives, and chairperson are as follows:
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
13
Emmanuel Atiomo Canada Representative, Acting Regional Director,
Lands Directorate
Edgar Rasmussen Canada Alternate
Representative, Senior Lands Advisor, Lands Directorate
Nelson Genaille TLEC Representative,
TLEC Board Vice President, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation
Carl Braun TLEC Representative, TLEC
Executive Director
Dave Hicks Manitoba Representative, Director - Agreements
Management, Manitoba Aboriginal & Northern Affairs
Rick Kosmick Manitoba Alternate Representative, Agreements
Management, Manitoba Aboriginal & Northern Affairs
Mr. Rod McLeod was appointed Chairperson of the IMC by the Parties effective March 1, 2007, for a two year term
ending February 28, 2009. Mr. McLeod has specialized in Aboriginal Law and Claims work for the past 24 years. In addition to acting for his own First Nation, he has acted for Grand Council Treaty 3, area Aboriginal Associations, Tribal Councils and tribal service organizations, as well as many First Nations in both Manitoba and NW Ontario. In particular, he acted as counsel to the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centers of Grand Council Treaty 3 and Manitoba for many years in the definition and advancement of Specific Claims. Mr. McLeod was the General Counsel to the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc. (TLEC) during the negotiation of the 1997 Framework Agreement on TLE in Manitoba. Practicing out of his offices located at Agency IR1 near Fort Frances, Ontario, he was also lead Claim negotiator in the recent settlement of the Treaty land entitlement of Peguis First Nation.
This Annual Report pertains to the fiscal year 2007/2008 which ended March 31, 2008. Reports were provided for prior years but unfortunately, due to the
early departure of the former IMC Chairperson Mr. Jack Chapman, no Annual Report was prepared for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
14
In the earlier stages of implementation, it would be fair to say that all Parties struggled with understanding the scope and range of their duties and responsibilities, the meaning of “Best Efforts of the Parties,” as well as the role that the IMC itself had been directed to assume in the overall process. Working relationships were tested as the demands associated with implementation and in particular, the steps leading to Reserve creation required to satisfy the MFA and federal Additions to Reserve Policy became evident. To some extent, these same factors bear upon the process today. The IMC has continued to struggle with its role in relation to resolution of disputes. Indeed, several of the issues or matters in dispute referred to the IMC Representatives shortly after the MFA was signed in 1997 remain unresolved. For example, the Parties have been unable to reach a consensus on the agreed form of Hydro Easement required under Article 12 of the MFA identified as a priority matter for attention in Article 38.
On the other hand, progress in implementation of the MFA has a number of elements around which positive performance in achievement of the MFA objectives may be measured.
1. STATISTICAL MONITORING
Manitoba’s Crown Lands Branch developed an information management system it called “TRELES” (a short form of “Treaty Land Entitlement System”) that has been relied on by all three Parties in tracking parcels of land through the provincial system leading up to transfer of the parcels to Canada. Although TRELES does not track land moving through the federal Reserve creation process after transfer to Canada, once Canada provides the information to Manitoba, TRELES can also track the amount of land accepted for transfer by Canada under The Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act and the amount of land set apart as Reserve by Ministerial Order or Order in Council. In order to produce the following graphical illustrations of Reserve creation from both an MFA and First Nation perspective, the IMC relied heavily upon the TRELES system developed and maintained by Manitoba.
The TLEC was near completion of its own internal electronic information tracking system at year end. It is expected to be operational early in fiscal year 2008-2009. Despite the recommendations of the federal Auditor General’s office, Canada does not anticipate completion of a similar internal system of internal monitoring of Reserve creation until at least the end of 2009. Firstly, in examining overall statistical performance under the MFA, the Parties must refer to the TLE for only the 15 EFNs that have signed TEAs to date as shown in Chart 3, rather than the entitlement of all of the EFNs under the MFA.
Secondly, the Parties should be aware of the overall rate of Crown land selection and private land purchase by the First Nations that have signed TEAs as shown in Charts 4 and 5.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
15
Chart 3: Total amount of Crown Land and Other Land of the 15 Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
ENTITLEMENT FIRST NATIONS CROWN LAND (ACRES) OTHER LAND (ACRES) TOTAL LAND (ACRES)
BARREN LANDS 66,420 66,420
BROKENHEAD 4,344 10,137 14,481
BUFFALO POINT 3,432 607 4,039
BUNIBONIBEE 35,434 35,434
GOD’S LAKE 42,600 42,600
MANTO SIPI 8,725 8,725
MATHIAS COLOMB 217,364 217,364
NISICHAWAYASIHK 61,761 61,761
NORTHLANDS 94,084 94,084
NORWAY HOUSE 104,784 104,784
OPASKWAYAK 47,658 8,410 56,068
ROLLING RIVER 2,356 44,756 47,112
SAPOTAWEYAK 108,134 36,045 144,179
WAR LAKE 7,156 7,156
WUSKWI SIPIHK 44,168 14,722 58,890
TOTAL 848,420 114,677 963,097
Chart 4: Rate and Amount of Crown Land Selection - 1997 to 2008 by the 15 Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
16
As can be seen, on an overall basis, the 15 EFNs had Selected 91% of their total Crown Land Amount (771,565 acres), but only acquired 5% of their total private purchase/Other Land Amount (5,603 acres).
Crown Land: Under the MFA, the EFNs were provided funds to complete a community planning and land selection exercise. The MFA provides for a target 3-5 year period for the completion of Crown Land selections. Only 7 of the EFNs have completed the selection of the total amount of their Crown Land entitlement to date. As anticipated by Article 4, extensions of target time periods were confirmed by the IMC in the earlier years of implementation, but there are no extensions of the time periods for Crown Land selection in place (except for EFNs affected by the Land in Severalty matter before arbitration) or plans for attending to the balance of Crown Land selections at present. This matter will be reviewed in the forthcoming year.
Other Land: Under the MFA, for the six EFNs entitled to purchase or otherwise acquire land for Reserve, the target period for completion of the purchase or other acquisition process was 15 years, approximately 2/3 of that period now having passed for most of the EFNs. None of the EFNs entitled to purchase land have acquired all of their land to date, nor are any of the EFNs near acquiring 2/3 of their entitlement as of this date. It is then readily apparent that the six EFNs with Other Land entitlement are unlikely to complete their acquisition of private or Other Land within the target time period. Also expressly anticipated by Article 4, there are no plans in place for attending to the target level of land purchases with the six EFNs. This matter will also be reviewed in the forthcoming year.
Performance Measurement - Reserve Creation – Total Acres Set Apart as Reserve under the MFA: For the purposes of the MFA, the measurement of progress has historically been the overall number of acres set apart as Reserve. Over the approximate 11 year period between May 29, 1997 and March 31, 2008, a total of 187,538 acres of Crown Land were set apart as Reserve representing 20% of the TLE of the 15 EFNs that have signed agreements under the MFA.
Chart 5: Rate and Amount of Other Land Acquisition - 1997 to 2008 by Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
17
Acceleration in the rate of Reserve creation has been recent as illustrated in Chart 6. As can be seen, the rate of acceleration of Reserve creation on an overall basis has noticeably increased since the commitment of the respective Ministers responsible in August of 2006. Indeed, as noted, 75% of the land set apart as Reserve was set apart by Canada in the 2007/2008 fiscal year. However, it should be noted that several significant sized parcels of land were set apart as Reserve for the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation and Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation in 2007. If these parcels are removed from the equation, the rates of achievement and increase in Reserve creation between year end 2007 and year end 2008 as both a percentage of the Total Land Amount under the MFA and total acres set apart as Reserve for the 15 EFNs is markedly less, only 44,640 acres representing 5% of the TLE of the EFNs rather than 20%. Progress measured by way of acres set apart as Reserve may be a measure of performance on an overall basis against the Total Amount of Land set out in Chart 6 above, but it is also important to measure performance on a parcel basis and for each individual
EFN as illustrated in the charts for the individual EFNs set out in Chart 8 on pages 19 through 23. Even so, the Parties are committed to the achievement of the overall target 150,000 acres for each of the next 3 years (note: the target is inclusive of the four other TLE settlement Agreements in Manitoba2). To a degree, internal planning and coordination efforts by the Parties are focused on Reserve creation proposals having the greatest likelihood of resolution each year and within that overall time period, but all Parties also agree that a focus on priority parcels of land identified by each EFN is an important element of the Reserve creation efforts. The achievement this past year was the direct result of the considerable efforts of staff responsible within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Aboriginal and Northern Affairs for Manitoba, Crown Lands Branch (Conservation) for Manitoba, TLEC and the individual EFNs involved. Similar continued efforts and cooperation can only be similarly productive in ensuring that the EFNs ultimately secure the additional land resources assured to them by Treaty.
2 Canada declared a division of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation after the MFA settlement, accordingly, adding the Marcel Colomb Cree Nation (as of March 30, 1999) and the OPCN (as of November 25, 2005) to the list of MFA Entitlement First Nations. As of March 31, 2008, these two “new” First Nations had not executed TEAs under the MFA. Other TLE settlements in Manitoba were reached with the four Island Lake First Nations (Garden Hill, Red Sucker Lake, St. Theresa Point and Wasagamack) – 100,000 acres in 1994, Long Plain First Nation – 26,437 acres in 1994, Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation – 16,218 acres in 1996 as well as the Swan Lake First Nation – 13,035 acres in 1995, involving a combination of Crown land selection and private purchase of land. Of this total TLE for non MFA First Nations, 100,063 acres or 65% of the TLE was set apart as Reserve as of March 31, 2008.
Chart 6: Rate of Reserve Creation - Total Land Amount - 1997 to 2008 by the 15 Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
18Performance Measurement - Reserve Creation – Acres Set Apart as Reserve by each Entitlement First Nation:
Chart 7: Rate of Reserve Creation - Crown Land versus Other Land - 1997 to 2008 by Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
or 53% of its Total Land Amount set apart as Reserve. Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation and other EFNs such as Sapotaweyak Cree Nation selected larger parcels of land used for traditional purposes soon after the signing of their TEAs and have remained very active in pursuing their entitlement at the community level.
Examination of the acres of land set apart as Reserve for each EFN as a measurement of performance over the last 11 years tells another, more graphic story. For example, at one end of the spectrum, seven First Nations have not had any land set apart for Reserve to date, while at the other end of the spectrum, the Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation has had some 23,468 acres
Performance Measurement - Reserve Creation – Total Crown Land Acres versus Other Land Acres set apart as Reserve under the MFA:
creation process. This element of implementation will be given greater attention in the work plans associated with the six Entitlement First Nations purchasing private land, beginning fiscal year 2008/2009.
When Crown Land acres and purchase land (Other Land) acres are separated out for comparison purposes as shown in Chart 7, it is quite evident that the purchase of land by First Nations for Reserve is lagging far behind the Crown Land selection and Reserve
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
19
Chart 8: Total Acres set apart as Reserve for each of the 15 Entitlement First Nations
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
20
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
21
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
22
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
23
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
24
When the Crown Land acres are separated from the total land acres, leaving only the private land (Other Land) acres for the six EFNs with purchase rights; another picture emerges which can assist in measuring the performance of the parties, and which is illustrated on Chart 9 below. Of the 5,603 acres of land acquired for Reserve by the six
Performance Measurement - Reserve Creation – Other Land Acres Set Apart as Reserve – Six Entitlement First Nations:
Chart 9: Other Land Amount, Other Land Acquired, and Other Land Set Apart as Reserve
EFNs having this right under their TEAs, less than 1% of that amount representing one parcel of land consisting of 158.14 acres has been set apart as Reserve (for the Rolling River First Nation). Purchase land represents a distinct and unique challenge that deserves greater attention by the Parties and six involved EFNs in the future.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
25
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
26
Unfortunately, as can be seen in Chart 9, there has been minimal progress in terms of Reserve creation associated with the purchase or other acquisition of land by the six EFNs which have a purchase/Other Land
entitlement over the past 11 years. Purchase or other acquisition of land is initiated by the involved EFNs. The Parties plan to examine the reasons for this situation during fiscal year 2008/2009.
2. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES
Overall coordination and communications improved markedly this past year, partially assisted by the target of 150,000 acres of Reserve creation in Manitoba by August 22, 2007 set by the Ministers responsible for Canada and Manitoba.
Year to Year and Future Planning:
Indian Affairs led the exercise in annual and future planning to identify priority parcels of land for Reserve creation and in producing a focus list of parcels of land by EFN considering the key tasks and issues affecting each parcel (e.g. timelines for completion of title examination, environmental clearance, survey, resolution of third party interests, size, use agreements, etc.). Emerging plans for each EFN were discussed in
parcel review meetings among the Parties and directly with the EFNs on a regular basis. Although effective, the process is not fully supported by an information monitoring system accessible or available to all Parties and is seriously impaired by the limited staff resources at TLEC available to assist EFNs at the community level and the even more limited administrative capacity of the EFNs to respond to the Parties’ demands and timelines. Achievement of the targets of 150,000 acres per year will be an increasingly difficult challenge in 2008/2009 and years thereafter without: the allocation of increased resources to TLEC; further improved coordination and communications among the Parties; the resolution of priority referrals by the IMC and other process improvements.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
27
In an effort to move forward as part of the renewal initiative, the Parties began a review of existing practices and processes involving the IMC this year, an internal examination with a view to identifying means and methods for improvement in the functioning of the IMC.
Although one of the IMC’s primary tasks is to make recommendations to the Parties for the resolution of any issue or matter in dispute relating to the implementation of the MFA or any TEA referred to it by any Party or EFN, it was evident to the Parties that the IMC was not functioning effectively in the manner directed by the MFA. Relatively few issues or matters in dispute had been adequately defined or addressed in the manner anticipated by the MFA after its execution in 1997. As a result, the majority of issues or matters in dispute had remained partially or completely unresolved for an inordinate amount of time.
Action: Agreement on Historic List of Issues or Matters in Dispute:
The Parties resolved to review the IMC proceedings with a view to define both historic and current Lists of Issues or Matters in Dispute. After an extensive file review with the cooperation of all Parties, the draft lists were prepared, issues identified, status of resolution or means of resolution determined and confirmed. See Appendix B for the draft list of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute as identified by the IMC Representatives, which remained a work in progress at year end.
Action: Structured Approach to Problem Solving:
With respect to unresolved issues or matters in dispute identified on the draft Current List referred to the IMC, the Parties further recognized the need for a more structured approach to determination of the issue, assembly of the relevant facts, assessment/interpretation of the applicable provisions of the MFA, the identification of options or alternatives for resolution of the issue and consideration of the recommendations of the Chairperson. In the event the IMC was unable to resolve an issue or matter in dispute, the IMC or Chairperson are obliged to provide the Senior Advisory Committee with an overall summary statement containing the above stated information/review. Accordingly, with the assistance of the IMC office, an agreed format for the referral and review of an issue or matter in dispute was developed and confirmed by the IMC Representatives for use in relation to dispute resolution. See the Protocol for the Referral and Review of Issues or Matters in Dispute now in use attached as Appendix C.
Action: Issuance of Explanatory Bulletins:
It is important that all Parties clearly agree upon the means or methods for resolution of disputes under the MFA. Equally important, the staff and officials involved in implementation on a day to day basis must be informed about the means or methods for resolution to be able to appreciate the implications of clarifications of the MFA and put them into practice for the overall betterment of the process of implementation. This type of communication or explanatory process did not
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
28
exist. At its March 2008 meeting, the IMC discussed this shortcoming in records and communications practice, directing the IMC office to establish a form of information bulletin and begin the practice of drafting bulletins dealing with issue resolution. For example, the first bulletin to be issued in the forthcoming year will deal with the concept of “eligibility” of a Selection or Acquisition to be set apart as Reserve under the MFA.
Action: Interim Report of the Chairperson:
In December, 2007, the Chairperson reported on the preliminary organizational steps taken since March 1, 2007. The Report also provided the Chairperson’s general observation of each Party’s unique approach to implementation under the MFA. This Report was prepared by the new Chairperson to inform the President of the TLEC, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Canada and the Minister of Northern Affairs of Manitoba of the preliminary organizational steps being taken, to provide an independent view to the Parties of their unique approaches to implementation under the MFA and to provide recommendations for improvement to their respective approaches and working relationships with each other on a day to day basis.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
29
The IMC did not resolve any active disputes during the past fiscal year. Efforts were directed to internal organization, file organization, development and confirmation of the draft historical and draft current list of issues as discussed in the above section. Progress was made in other ways:
Issue Resolution:
After the IMC Representatives confirmed the standardization of their approach to review of issues or matters in dispute in the form of the “protocol”, as it was called (see Appendix C), the IMC office assembled file information from each Party and prepared current draft statements summarizing the state of review of the priority issues or matters in dispute, inclusive of the Issue and Fact portions before the IMC, being:
1. The “hydro easement issue” as referred by the TLEC.
2. The “portage issue” as referred by the Bunibonibee Cree Nation and TLEC.
3. The “land in severalty issue” as referred by the Barren Lands First Nation and TLEC.
4. Eligibility of Land for Selection and Acquisition issue as referred by the TLEC.
Certain interim steps were also taken with reference to each referral, for example:
1. “Hydro Easement Issue” (Bill 32) – Since the Manitoba legislature did not proceed with Bill 32 to amend the Real Property Act of Manitoba, this aspect of this referral file was closed with a recommendation from the Chairperson that Manitoba address any necessary consultation requirements should the Bill be re-tabled in the future. It is noted that Manitoba did not accept that it had a consultation obligation in relation to this proposed legislation.
2. “Portage Issue” - In order to deal with Selections in advanced stages, the IMC Representatives agreed to an interim arrangement that Manitoba could use with the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation: the completion of the Selection survey in 2 parts (one for the portage area in issue), offering the EFN the option to proceed with the Selection in two stages pending resolution of the “portage issue”. Once the “portage issue” was resolved the portage land would proceed through the Reserve creation process, either as Reserve not subject to a portage easement or subject to the easement sought by Manitoba. In this manner, the survey was completed inclusive of both parts and the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation Selection was able to proceed;
3. “Land in Severalty Issue” – The IMC office completed the IMC file record to define the issue and to assemble and confirm all current relevant facts. However, further IMC review was deferred by the IMC pending a formal review of the status of the draft terms of reference for the renewal of the arbitration process.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
30
4. “Review of Concept of Eligibility of Land for Selection and Acquisition” – As a result of Manitoba’s practice of review of Selections less than 1,000 acres in area, a list of issues impeding the processing of Selections had been developed. The Parties held focus meetings to review the list of Selections of less than 1,000 acres resulting in an organized review of the Selections and various discussions on the list of ineligible Selections (46 Selections based on other
applicable Principles and 31 Selections based on Competing Considerations). Of equal importance was the development of a practice advisory in the form of a “discussion paper” on the review process and related questions of “competing considerations” and other eligibility principles. At year end, the IMC Representatives had confirmed a consensus and directed the preparation of the first informational “bulletin” to all Parties on this matter.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
31
A draft list of the Current Issues or Matters in Dispute not resolved at March 31, 2008, is attached as Appendix D. The parties agreed that this list remained in draft form at year end, and is a work in progress targeted for completion in early 2008/09. In summary, the draft Current List consists of the following 10 issues:
• 1999-BPFN-001 – Land in a Provincial Park, Ecological Reserve, Wildlife Refuge or Proposed National Park (Subsection 3.30(6)): Buffalo Point First Nation referred this issue to the IMC when its Selection within Birch Point Provincial Park was determined ineligible by Manitoba. The TLEC has agreed to follow up with Buffalo Point First Nation to ascertain whether this is still an issue for IMC attention.
• 1999-NCN-003 –Effective Date of Agreement (Section 30.01): The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation referred this issue to the IMC when it disagreed with Canada on the Date of Execution of the Nisichawayasihik Cree Nation’s TEA. The IMC via the TLEC is following up with the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation to ascertain whether this is still an issue for them.
• 2003-BON-001 – Surplus Federal Land (Section 3.10): The Brokenhead Ojibway Nation referred this matter to the IMC in relation to the designation of surplus federal land by Canada (Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba) it had Selected as a “strategic disposal”. Although this remains an open I/M Referral, on January 25, 2008, the Treaty 1 First Nations, including Brokenhead Ojibway Nation (an EFN) filed a lawsuit against Canada in relation to the designation of this surplus land. The TLEC has undertaken to
communicate with the EFN and provide the IMC with an update of the status of this issue.
• 2004-BLFN/TLEC-002 – Land in Severalty (Section 9.01): This referral to the IMC pertains to the assertion of the right of individual Members of the Barren Lands First Nation to elect to take Land in Severalty. The matter was referred to binding arbitration by the IMC, which is held in abeyance at present pending a revision of the terms of reference for the arbitrator to include a non-binding determination on the legal question of the existence of the right to Land in Severalty. TLEC is reviewing the matter with its new legal counsel. The IMC has deferred further review under its referral protocol pending the question of renewal of the arbitration process.
• 2006-Manitoba-001 – Process for Land Selection and Acquisition Section 6.02(6)): In this referral, the Bunibonibee Cree Nation alleged that Manitoba breached its MFA obligations by permitting several registrations to be made against a Lease affecting the EFN’s Selection involving Knee Lake Lodge. The TLEC has undertaken to review the matter with the EFN in the 2008/2009 fiscal year to ascertain the status of this issue.
• 2006-BCN/TLEC-003 – General Principles for Selection and Acquisition of Land (Subsection 3.02(12): The Bunibonibee Cree Nation and TLEC referred this matter to the IMC disagreeing with Manitoba’s request that portage areas on the Trout Falls and Wipanipanis Selections be excluded from the Reserve to be created or if included be subject to an access agreement. The IMC is actively reviewing this referral.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
32
• 2006-TLEC-004: General Principles for Selection and Acquisition of Land (Subsections 3.02(3) - (7)): The TLEC referred this issue to the IMC disagreeing with Manitoba’s interpretation of the Principles of eligibility being applied by Manitoba in relation to competing considerations on Selections less than 1,000 acres in area. This issue was the topic of two focus meetings and a Discussion Paper. Progress has been made in that the list of Selections with issues has been reduced from 139 (from September 2005) to 77 and the process of review improved. The IMC anticipates that this issue will be resolved in the 2008/2009 fiscal year.
• 2007-BPFN-001: Road Right of Way (Section 13.01): Manitoba is ordinarily entitled to a right of way along provincial trunk highways under the MFA. The Buffalo Point First Nation acquired land along Provincial Trunk Highway #12. BPFN objected to excluding the control zone from the land to be set apart as reserve, asserting its future development needs should be given greater weight in considering the right of way requirement, or perhaps offset Manitoba’s right. Both the EFN and MANA presented their views at the December 12, 2007 IMC meeting
and offered ideas for potential resolution of the matter. Manitoba and the EFN agreed to further discussions to resolve the issue.
• 2007-TLEC-002 – Hydro Easement (Section 12.05): The TLEC referred two issues within this referral: firstly, TLEC is asserting that Manitoba is not entitled to retain even partial constitutional jurisdiction required to support an easement required by Manitoba Hydro and secondly, that the Hydro Easement should set out a resolution process where the EFNs can address alleged impacts on the EFNs existing aboriginal and Treaty rights as well as any potential claim to compensation in respect to the easement area. The IMC is actively reviewing this issue as discussed below.
• 2007-TLEC-003 – Constitutional or Legislative Changes (Section 40.12): The TLEC referred Manitoba Bill 32, an amendment to the Real Property Act, alleging a failure to consult or accommodate. After it was confirmed that Bill 32 is no longer actively under consideration in the Manitoba legislature, the IMC closed its file early in the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
In light of the establishment of the “Protocol for the Referral and Review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute”, or for short, the “I/M Referral Protocol”, the IMC office had undertaken to incorporate the facts and efforts at resolution of certain issues or matters in dispute into the I/M Referral Protocol format. At year end, the IMC Representatives were actively reviewing the following matters:
• 2004-BLFN/TLEC-002 – Land in Severalty (LIS) (Section 9.01): The Barren Lands First Nation referred the matter to the IMC alleging that Canada had failed to enter into discussions with individual Members of the Barren Lands First Nation in regards to the nature and extent of the rights asserted to elect to take Land in Severalty within the time frame set out in the MFA. The IMC office assembled the file documentation and set out the issue and summary of applicable facts in the form of the I/M Referral Protocol. Each Party was requested to review the draft for accuracy and completeness. Once confirmed, the IMC office would typically prepare the Interpretation sections of the issue review, but in this case, in light of its referral to arbitration, that step has been deferred pending
the outcome of arbitration. The issue was defined by the IMC office as follows:
“The BLFN and TLEC each asserted that Canada materially failed to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the MFA, specifically the requirements set out in Sections 9.01 and 9.02. Specifically:
1. That a number of Members of the Barren Lands First Nation asserted their individually held Treaty right to LIS in accordance with Subsection 9.01(3) either :
(a) before the Selection of 50% of the Barren Lands First Nation’s Crown Land amount under its TEA; or(b) 1 year from the Date of Execution of its TEA; and
2. That Canada failed to enter into the discussions about LIS as described in Subsection 9.01(4) “as soon as reasonably practicable”, those discussions intended to be concluded within one year of the date of the last notice of a LIS election was received by Canada “.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
33
• 2006-BCN/TLEC-003 – General Principles for Selection and Acquisition of Land (Subsection 3.02(12): Manitoba is asserting a right to exclude land affected by an existing portage or to an easement agreement over the portage area in relation to two of the Bunibonibee Cree Nation Selections. The IMC office assembled the file documentation and set out the Issue and summary of applicable Facts in the form of the I/M Referral Protocol. The parties were requested to review the draft for accuracy and completeness. The issue was defined by the IMC office as follows:
“The BCN and TLEC each asserted that Manitoba materially failed to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the MFA, specifically in characterizing portages as “reasonable competing considerations” and thereby refusing to proceed with the transfer of the Selections to Canada contrary to the requirement of Subsections 3.02(6) and 7.01(2) and the definition of Crown Reservations set out in Subsection 1.01(21). Specifically:
1. On December 23, 2002, Manitoba notified Bunibonibee Cree Nation of the outcome of its review of Bunibonibee Cree Nation’s Selections which included Site 15.02, called the “Trout Falls” and Site 20-02 called the “Wipanipanis Portage” (both estimated to be less than 1,000 acres in area) advising, among other things, that Manitoba had identified “another competing interest” on both of these Selections which it wished to protect, the right of public use of an existing portage on each Selection.
2. On March 22, 2006, Manitoba referred the allegations of material failure by Bunibonibee Cree Nation and TLEC to the IMC for review in accordance with Subsection 36.01(2).”
• 2007-TLEC-002 – Hydro Easement (Section 12.05), Hydro Easement: Provincial or federal administration and control and a forum to deal with the rights of the EFN’s. The IMC office assembled the file documents and set
out the Issue and summary of applicable Facts in the form of the I/M Referral Protocol. The Parties were requested to review the draft for accuracy and completeness. The issue was defined by the IMC office as follows:
“TLEC asserted in its Referrals that the Agreed Forms Committee (“AFC”) had reached an impasse in its efforts to reach an agreement on a form of Hydro Easement to recommend to the IMC for approval. Due to the interrelationship of the facts and issues involved in the two Referrals made, the IMC Representatives directed that they be consolidated. Each Party then replied to the Referrals as a single I/M. The issues identified by TLEC related to the inability of the AFC to reach a consensus on a recommended form of Hydro Easement can be summarized as follows:
A. In TLEC’s opinion, the Hydro Easement granted to Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in relation to Reserve set apart for an EFN adjacent to a Developed Waterway should include a requirement for a process by which any Treaty or aboriginal rights of the EFN affected by the easement rights may be discussed, and if appropriate, reconciled with the grant of rights in the Hydro Easement, the process to include access to a forum for discussion, access to suitable funding for the EFN to participate in discussions and a mechanism for determination of any compensation to which the EFN may be entitled for the rights granted or negative impacts on Treaty or aboriginal rights;
B. In TLEC’s opinion, although Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro are entitled to a Hydro Easement in the circumstances set out in Subsection 12.05(1) of the MFA, the easement rights to be held by Manitoba and/or Manitoba Hydro should be established by way of a Replacement Interest, either instrument issued under the FRPFIA (Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act), the Indian Act or other means/mechanism as may be agreed by the Parties, not involving a transfer of partial administration and control to Manitoba by Canada.”
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
34
Action: Agreement on Current List of Issues or Matters in Dispute:
The Parties resolved to review the IMC proceedings with a view to define both historic and current Lists of Issues or Matters in Dispute. After an extensive file review with the cooperation of all Parties, the draft Lists were prepared, issues identified, and the status of resolution or means of resolution determined and confirmed. The parties agreed that this list remained in draft form at year end, and is a work in progress targeted for completion in early 2008/09. See Appendix D for the Draft List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute as at year end.
Action: Identification of Priorities:
In terms of resolution of disputes, the IMC Representatives identified the following matters as priority issues for resolution:
• Referral 2007-TLEC-002 – Hydro Easement (Section 12.05): Hydro Easement: As stated above, this referral involves complex questions of provincial or federal administration and control and EFNs views of impacts on Treaty and aboriginal rights in relation to consultation. The IMC office is continuing its analysis of this matter, in particular, the more challenging Interpretation sections. This matter is estimated to be impeding the setting apart of some 77 Selections comprising approximately 68,871.23 acres for EFNs who have signed their TEAs.
• Referral 2006-BCN/TLEC-003 – General Principles for Selection and Acquisition of Land (Subsection 3.02(12): This matter is in relation to portages on two Bunibonibee Cree Nation Selections. Although this referral is in regards to these two Selections only, it has implications for Selection of Crown Land generally in that portages have been identified as issues in relation to some 14 Selections affecting 41,676 acres of land for a number of EFNs.
•Implementation Issue - Third Party Interests: Third Party Interests (TPI) are not the subject of a specific referral, but the task of resolving the long list of TPIs with a variety of means and methods was identified as the key issue affecting Reserve creation. Indeed, TPIs affect some 63 parcels of
land encompassing a total of 93,700 acres of land. The IMC office produced an illustration of the types of Third Party Interests impeding the setting apart of parcels for the IMC Representatives. Manitoba has undertaken to develop a similar TPI impact report from TRELES which can then be used to develop a more strategic plan for the resolution of Third Party Interests in 2008/2009.
• Agreements with Six Unsigned First Nations: As of this date, the following First Nations have not decided to enter into TEAs under the MFA for various reasons:
• Fox Lake First Nation • Sayisi Dene First Nation• Marcel Colomb Cree Nation • Shamattawa First Nation • O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation • York Factory First Nation
Each First Nation listed in the MFA may choose to consider entering into a TEA or choose not to do so. The IMC Representatives have agreed to make a concerted effort to assist those First Nations interested in pursuing a TEA in fiscal year 2008/2009, or move on to other priority matters. Each of these First Nations is at a different stage or level of readiness to commence or proceed with the LSS and CAP for executing their TEAs. All three Parties made the effort to inform and offer support to these six communities in deciding whether or not to proceed with a CAP this forthcoming year. In the 2008/2009 fiscal year, the Parties are to develop a work plan with timelines to go forward with those First Nations interested in TEAs.
• Extensions to Periods of Selection and Acquisition: No extensions were requested during the 2007/2008 fiscal year, but 7 of the 15 EFNs who have signed their TEAs have not selected all of their Crown Land Entitlement and all six EFNs who are entitled to Other Land have not purchased all of their Other Land. An EFN may request extension of periods in accordance with Section 4.02 for both Selections and Acquisitions. The IMC may also request a plan from an EFN if it appears it will not complete its Selections or Acquisitions within the target time periods.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
35
In accordance with Paragraph 4.01(a) of the MFA, an EFN may select land up to its Crown Land Amount within three years from the date its TEA comes into force. In 2002 and 2003, some EFNs requested extensions for their Selections, but other than the extensions accorded to the Barren Lands First Nation and Northlands First Nation, all the extensions accorded by the IMC have expired. For Barren Lands and Northlands, the extension will be extended for an additional three year period after the date of resolution of the land in severalty issue.
In accordance with Paragraph 4.01(b) of the MFA, an EFN may acquire land up to its Other Land Amount within 15 years from the date
their TEA comes into force. As the six EFNs with land purchase rights signed their TEAs in or about 1999, they have 5/6 years to complete their purchases with the benefit of the Principles for Land Selection and MFA based Additions to Reserve guidelines. However, since little progress has been made in relation to land purchase, the development of specific plans for each EFN is a matter of priority.
TLEC has undertaken the lead role in addressing these questions with the EFNs. Plans for the completion of Selections and Acquisitions are expected to be defined during this next fiscal year.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
36
Although the Parties are each fully responsible and liable for the due performance of their respective obligations under the MFA, the MFA prescribes a specific role and list of duties for the IMC and the IMC Chairperson distinct from the roles and responsibilities of the Parties (e.g. Sections 34.07 and 34.09 of the MFA). The IMC’s task is to:
• generally facilitate the implementation of the MFA, by among other things:
- monitoring of the progress in implementation;- making recommendations to the Parties for the resolution of an issue or matter in dispute relating to the implementation of the MFA or any TEA referred to it by any Party or EFN; and- considering the appropriate method of resolution of an issue or matter in dispute;
Under the general direction of the independent Chairperson in:
• maintaining and distributing a record of decisions, awards and other pertinent information:
- determining the sufficiency of information provided to the IMC in relation to implementation;
- if necessary, requesting that appropriate steps be taken to provide information as may be deemed appropriate related to implementation;
- in relation to the resolution of issues or matters in dispute, proposing time periods for responding to referrals, directing the completion
of reports, identifying strengths and weaknesses of proposed solutions; directing IMC members to assist in resolving issues or matters in dispute and proposing solutions;
- retaining technical, special or legal advisors to provide advice, guidance and opinions to assist in the proper discharge of the duties of the IMC, in dealing with implementation matters or handling of issues or matters in dispute, with or without the agreement of the IMC;
- recording the means of resolution or inability of the IMC to determine a means of resolution of an issue or matter in dispute referred to the IMC;
- referring any matter the IMC cannot resolve by consensus to the Senior Advisory Committee along with a statement of the issue, means recommended for resolution by the Chairperson, summary of directions given and response of each IMC party to the recommendation; and
- preparing and tabling annual and other special reports to the Parties on the overall state of implementation, including a summary of issues addressed and resolved and recommendations for improvement of any aspect of the MFA implementation process.
The IMC representatives, recognizing the independent status of the Chairperson of the IMC, requested that he provide the IMC with advice and recommendations for improvements with respect to the IMC’s obligations,
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
37
many of which it implemented and acted upon during the 2007/2008 fiscal year, as well as a priority list of recommendations for improvements over the course of the IMC planning process at year end and into fiscal year 2008/2009. Steps taken in response to the independent Chairperson’s recommendations during the 2007/2008 fiscal year are summarized below:
Issue: That the IMC develop a sufficient internal administrative capacity to manage IMC matters, to ensure timely steps were taken toward the resolution of IMC issues and to act more effectively as a coordinating body to monitor and direct a renewal of the MFA/IMC implementation process.
Up until June 1, 2007, the IMC Chairperson used the offices of the TLEC and modest administrative support services provided by the TLEC. The past
Chairpersons did not act full time, but on an as needed basis, as does the current Chairperson. In these circumstances, it was evident that, after 10 years of existence, that neither the IMC as a group, nor the Chairperson was able to commit the time or resources necessary to effectively fulfill their respective duties and responsibilities as summarized in the above paragraphs.
Action: Set up a separate office for the administration of the IMC and focus point for the work of the Chairperson in relation to the general facilitation of the implementation process.
With the support of the Parties, INAC provided funding to rent space, staff and equip office space for an IMC office at 200-400 St. Mary Avenue in Winnipeg. Two support staff were recruited, employed and in training by mid-June 2007.
Geneviève Boudreau practiced law in Nova Scotia before moving to Winnipeg with her husband and daughter. Ms. Boudreau also completed her Master in Laws with a thesis focus on Charter rights which was in part published in the International Journal of Canadian Studies. She recently presented her views at the 25th Anniversary of the Canadian Constitution Conference in Edmonton, Alberta. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Genevieve obtained her Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and designed facilities for MacDonald Engineering in Alberta. Ms. Boudreau also is and has been very involved as a volunteer in her Acadian community and as a member or executive of a number of non-profit community service organizations.
Marion Wilson is a member of the Peguis First Nation who is currently residing in Winnipeg with her family. Upon graduating from high school in her home community of Peguis in 1995, she moved to the City of Winnipeg to further her education in the administrative field with the National Training Institute and Red River College. After successfully completing her diploma in Data Processing and Introduction to Microcomputers, Marion gained over twelve years of work experience in the administrative field. Marion was the Executive Assistant to the Director of the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc. prior to commencing with the IMC. Marion also held various positions with the Peguis First Nation and the Town of Churchill liaising with other Manitoba First Nations and Organizations.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
38
Funding for this initiative was renewed for a second fiscal year ending March 31, 2009 and is expected to be long term in nature. Although both Manitoba and the TLEC have agreed to accountable advance funding, INAC has been prohibited from doing so due to a minor administrative impediment found in the MFA. The Chairperson has recommended an administrative amendment to the MFA to resolve this matter during fiscal year 2008/2009.
Issue: That the IMC assemble and organize a historical record of its activities and decisions.
Although active for 10 years, the IMC had not established or maintained a comprehensive file management system suitable for IMC records maintenance, implementation monitoring, tracking of Reserve creation, treatment/resolution of issues or matters in dispute or general administration of IMC matters.
Action: Set up a File/Information Management System:
The IMC office now has three key groups of files, one group includes all files dealing with issues or matters in dispute, classified as “active”, “resolved” or “no longer at issue”. However, these files are not necessarily complete and current (see the comments in this regard below). The second group of files deal with the monitoring of Reserve creation and includes the various types of reports produced by the Parties. The third group consists of the IMC general office files covering all other subjects necessary to manage IMC matters.
Action: Prepare Preliminary Historic and Current Lists of the Issues or Matters in Dispute.
Preliminary draft historic and current lists of the issues or matters in dispute were created to confirm a complete record of the issues or matters in dispute by Party, by EFN, by issue, and by means of resolution. The draft Current List will be updated regularly by the IMC office and placed on the IMC website to enable all Parties and the EFNs to determine the status of a matter.
Completion of the Lists will have a number of positive results. It will produce a historical record of issues that are addressed under the MFA for the
reference of all Parties to be applied in implementation today and into the future. It will also be an IMC monitoring and reporting tool to be maintained, as well as a public record of progress (or lack thereof) in the resolution of issues and the role of the IMC in support of that process. The continued cooperation of all Parties is important and will be required in the future.
Issue: That the IMC had not developed nor maintained an accepted procedure to deal with issues or matters in dispute referred to the IMC and their means of resolution or current status over the last 10 years of its existence in spite of the extensive directions in that regard set out in the MFA
Action: Development of a Guideline or Protocol for the Definition and Efforts at Resolution of Issues or Matters in Dispute.
The IMC representatives agreed upon a guideline or format for issue definition and resolution which was called the “Protocol for the Referral and Review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute”, or for short, the “I/M Referral Protocol”, essentially an attempt at a standardized form for the submission of a referral which would also be used to define and track the review of the referral over time by the IMC. Ultimately, as submitted and then revised during the IMC referral review process, the I/M Referral Protocol is to be used to first document the referral, then the steps toward resolution of the referred issue and its means of resolution. If not resolved, it would contain the summary statement of the attempt of the Parties to resolve the issue upon referral of the matter to the SAC under the MFA. See Appendix C.
Issue: That the IMC had evolved into an administrative bottleneck arising from the premature referral of issues or matters in dispute without sufficient discussion among the Parties, in particular including communications with the affected EFN(s) on the resolution of issues and implementation procedure.
Each Party has the obligation to accept its responsibilities and discharge its duties under the MFA in good faith with due diligence in keeping with their stated Best Efforts, the terms, spirit and intent of the MFA. Each Party has the obligation to do so on a day to day basis in regular communication with the other
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
39
Parties and EFNs as necessary. Unfortunately, at times it appeared that the practice was to frame any issue or difficulty that arose as “an issue or matter in dispute” and refer it to the IMC, before all Parties had exhausted reasonable efforts to deal with the issue or difficulty. In addition, the Parties had shown a tendency to act on an issue or matter in dispute only upon and at IMC meetings once the matter was tabled before or referred to the IMC, thereby greatly delaying attempts at resolution. This practice was revisited.
Action: The Chairperson and IMC representatives have and will continue to encourage the Parties to make every effort to resolve implementation matters before making a referral to the IMC and when doing so, will expect the referral to reflect the fullest extent of that effort.
A referral can be made to the IMC based on any aspect of the MFA, however, the MFA anticipates that each Party will have fully determined the issue and made their best efforts to resolve the issue or matter in dispute prior to referral. Institution of the agreed review of the I/M Referral Protocol this year provided a format for referral. The IMC office has acted more deliberately to direct adherence to the I/M Referral Protocol resulting in a more structured review and approval of each stage of the review of an issue or matter in dispute. All Parties must continue to cooperate in responding to this approach to referrals on a timely basis.
Issue: Insufficiency of established practices to affirm the MFA obligations of each Party.
In simple terms, each Party must act in accordance with and assume its responsibilities assigned to it under the MFA. There appeared to be insufficient guidelines prepared by any of the Parties to assist the EFNs and other Parties in appreciating the concepts and guidelines of the MFA.
Action: Schedule Regular Focus Meetings
The Parties have instituted more regular tri-partite meetings apart from day to day affairs and formal IMC meetings which have been called “focus meetings” to discuss specific issues that are impeding the implementation of the MFA. In these focus meetings, the Parties are encouraged to build upon, rather than defend past approaches, to take a constructive, rather
than positional approach to problem solving, and to come to the table open to new perspectives and solutions in the spirit of cooperation as reflected in the MFA.
Action: Revisit Operational Concepts that have Impeded Relationship Building
Concepts discussions are meant for the IMC Representatives to review and discuss concepts reflected in the MFA to ensure they are being reflected in the handling of issues at the IMC and by the Parties in their day to day practice. Subjects or provisions giving rise to MFA concepts requiring discussion are being identified by either the IMC representatives or the Chairperson from time to time. These concepts are general topics that may improve understanding of the MFA and IMC support for implementation like the role of the IMC, ideas/plans for improvements and the application of the concepts reflected in the MFA settlement.
By way of example, Manitoba was asked to review its approach to the review of Selections submitted by EFNs in light of concerns about past practice as it may or may not be in compliance with the directions reflected in the provisions of the MFA – the concept of “land eligible to be set apart as Reserve”. At the March 20, 2008, meeting, Manitoba affirmed it would begin to apply a new practice and approach to its review of land Selections and Acquisitions. The IMC agreed that the “concept of eligibility” discussed would be set out in an informational bulletin for the reference of all Parties and EFNs in early 2008/2009.
Action: Encourage open discussion of Issues around Discussion Papers
The implementation of the MFA has been impeded by the Parties conflicting interpretations of certain provisions of the MFA. However, other than by way of referral of issues or matters in dispute, the IMC had not developed any other practice for resolution of conflicting views of the intent or meaning of the MFA. In recognition of this shortcoming, the IMC has instituted a new practice. After there is sufficient understanding of the nature of the conflicting views, a discussion paper will be prepared by the IMC office based upon an understanding of the views of the Parties and independent view of the directions or requirements of the MFA to assist the Parties in consideration of a new perspective on the provisions at issue.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
40
The first draft Discussion Paper on the question of treatment of Selections of Crown Land of less than 1,000 acres was prepared by the IMC office and provided to the Parties for consideration on October 26, 2007. After two focus meetings to discuss the Paper, the IMC confirmed their consensus on the Paper in March 2008 and instructed the IMC office to prepare it for issuance to the Parties and EFNs as an informational bulletin.
Action: Increase communications among the Parties and with the EFNs
The combined effect of these new initiatives will be an increased level of communication among the Parties, within the Departments involved in implementation on behalf of each Party and between the Parties and the EFNs. To the extent that the Parties continue the efforts begun in the 2007/2008 fiscal year, communications will increase in the form of:
• an increase in the level of tri-partite communications in relation to the monitoring of the Reserve creation process among the Parties and definition of suitable performance measurements;
• the informational bulletins on issue resolution and clarification of MFA procedure and practice;
• the regularly scheduled focus meetings among the Parties to deal with year to year planning, resolution of specific implementation issues, identification of priorities and coordination requirements; and
•the development of Discussion Papers to clarify MFA procedure and, upon affirmation, provide guidance to all Parties in implementation;
Action: Increase communications between the Chairperson and IMC office with the IMC Representatives
An increased level of communication between the IMC Representatives and the Chairperson as well as the IMC Office to provide guidance when needed for increased efficiency of the implementation of the MFA.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
41
Monitoring of the Progress of Implementation:
The monitoring of implementation could be improved. Manitoba has developed its TRELES system which appears to be sufficient for Manitoba’s purposes. However, TRELES is relied upon by all three Parties for information and statistical monitoring to some degree. Manitoba is the only Party that has developed an electronic data base and software application to manipulate the data providing various types of reports for monitoring and performance measurement purposes. Statistical information monitoring by Canada and the TLEC is otherwise a matter of manual entry and assembly of file by file and First Nation by First Nation tracking. Considering the extent and complexity of the steps in Reserve creation over an extended period of time, all three Parties should have an in-house, manipulative data base to track the status of each parcel of land through the process by each First Nation over time. Without a comprehensive information management system, it is virtually impossible to effectively track Reserve creation in a time efficient manner, much less to establish appropriate performance measurements and to monitor the standards set for that purpose.
Canada: Canada had stated that it is in the midst of development of an internal information management tracking system, however, the details of that planning and the expected outcomes of the system are unknown to the IMC as a whole, as is the timetable for completion of key tasks and the overall system. Certainly, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) will produce the system it determines as acceptable, but the lack of open information sharing at times and consultation in
relation to tracking of common information exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the tri-partite nature of the Reserve creation process, be it MFA based or not. It is suggested that there be more open communications among the Parties, as has been the case with TLEC’s Reserve tracking system, as mentioned below.
TLEC: Although also long overdue, the TLEC, with financial support from Canada, is now near the completion of its own internal Reserve creation tracking system. The TLEC made a determined effort to share details of its development process at key stages in the process with Canada and Manitoba in an effort to produce a more collaborative and cost effective product more likely to produce a more functional system of monitoring and more useful informational outputs for all the Parties. TLEC’s efforts to date are on the development concept, tracking details, report outputs and collaborative possibilities of its new internal Reserve creation tracking system.
It is imperative that Canada and TLEC each undertake to do everything to ensure that they each have a comprehensive information management and Reserve creation monitoring system in place by March 31, 2009.
Monitoring of the Progress of Implementation - Performance Measurement: The charts and illustrations of progress and the form of the various measurements set out in this Annual Report were created by the IMC office for the purposes of this Report. Except for the MFA entitlement summary,
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
42
Chart 2, none of these Reports in the form presented were available from any of the Parties, nor able to be produced by any of the Parties except by way of a time consuming or error prone process of file by file examination or update. It is again recommended that Canada and the TLEC complete their software applications to monitor MFA implementation as soon as absolutely possible.
As recommended in the above comments, regardless of the completion of a software application to track Reserve creation, to provide statistical reports to monitor the various aspects of the process and progress year to year, it is further recommended that the Parties collaborate in the types and forms of report suitable for tri-partite/IMC monitoring purposes.
In this regard, the Chairperson has further recommended that the Reports produced include:
• reporting on the basis of the number of parcels of land set apart as Reserve as tracking only by acres set apart can be misleading on an overall MFA and on an EFN by EFN basis if only a few large parcels are set apart as Reserve;
• reporting that distinctly tracks the setting apart of Crown Land and purchase/Other Land as Reserve;
• and that these reports be issued to individual EFNs on a not less than quarterly basis in the future.
Pace and Impact of Implementation - Revisit Planning:
It is often assumed that Reserve creation under the MFA begins with the Selection or Acquisition of land by a First Nation that has signed a TEA. However, it can also be said to begin before actual selection or purchase, with the examination of the existing needs of the First Nation and planning for the future by its Chief and Council and Members. In the focus on Reserve creation, it is important that this preliminary step be acknowledged in light of its importance for the First Nation community and its place in the overall exercise of fulfillment of the Parties obligations under the MFA.
It is noted that Article 22 of the MFA speaks to this planning exercise. The community planning exercise formally begins within 30 days after the initiation of the CAP leading to the signing of its TEA. Under the MFA Canada is obliged to provide a reasonable amount of funding reflecting the circumstances of the specific First Nation for the completion of a Land Selection Study that includes:
“… a community planning and development process with the objective of determining, in consultation with its Members, the best interests of the Entitlement First Nation in the Selection or Acquisition of land and to identify suitable land for Selection or Acquisition which will address those interests.”
Considering the slow pace of implementation until this past year, the difficulties encountered and the passage of time as it would affect community understanding of their TEA, the changes in First Nation Councils and administration and the existence of a whole new generation of First Nation members involved in implementation, the various Studies that were completed may be outdated and out of sync with the current views and aspirations of the First Nations. It may be advisable to revisit the community planning aspect of the MFA for these reasons, especially with the acceleration of the overall pace of implementation and the need to complete land Selections or Acquisitions. The Parties appreciate the importance of the community planning exercise, especially in hindsight, and have discussed ensuring full involvement in the exercise to be undertaken by any of the unsigned First Nations who decide to proceed with the CAP and enter into TEAs in the future.
Focus on Priorities and Parcel Selections:
The continued development of tri-partite efforts to identify and work with an agreed list of priorities assembled on an EFN by EFN and parcel by parcel basis is strongly recommended and supported by all Parties. TLEC is strongly advocating that each EFN identify its four priority parcels and commit the effort and resources required to attend to resolution of all issues and interests affecting those parcels, regardless of size.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
43
This particular element of priority planning will engage the EFNs in our view; improve communications and perception of the MFA implementation process – that is happening in the EFN community, not in Winnipeg or Ottawa. Further results will improve by and across the spectrum of EFNs if the MFA achievements annually are measured by the overall amount of acres set apart as Reserve as well by EFN.
Increased EFN Communication and Information Sharing:
In its most basic sense, the setting apart of all of the TLE due to each EFN is the measure of successful achievement of the MFA. However, the EFNs have expressed the view that their involvement seems to be of a limited nature and they have minimal understanding
of the general Reserve creation process. This past year, the IMC has focused on MFA policy identified as important to the EFNs, beginning with the somewhat confusing concept of eligibility of Selections under the MFA. The IMC Representatives approved of a concept statement at year end and directed the preparation and issuance of the first IMC informational bulletin on this topic. With the financial support of INAC, the TLEC organized and hosted their second annual Third Party Interest Workshop on March 12 and 13, 2008. The EFNs were presented with tools for and information of roles and responsibilities in the resolution of Third Party Interests. From this Workshop, the TLEC incorporated parcels with Third Party Interests in TLEC’s work plan for 2008/2009. These initiatives and other means of communication, including the development of an IMC website accessible by the EFNs will be expanded in 2008/2009.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
44
Reserve creation in a modern day context is a challenging exercise, as had been proven here in Manitoba as well as elsewhere in Canada.
At the same time as the EFNs have a unique opportunity to secure enduring benefits and opportunities arising from their entitlement to additional Reserve (whether it involves land for community needs, economic development, cultural preservation or traditional uses), the complexity of the process has tended to overwhelm local administrations which are typically not funded, trained or otherwise prepared to assume the myriad of responsibilities involved, much less make the required decisions to advance land Selections and Acquisitions through the federal Reserve creation system.
The TLEC, as the central support agency for the EFNs, has struggled with its responsibilities, but has clearly made significant advances in its communications with the EFNs, training support capacity, monitoring and prioritization of implementation issues. That said, TLEC has forcefully asserted that it remains under-resourced and under-staffed for the task, an assertion that has been acknowledged by the federal Department of Indian Affairs. INAC provided supplementary funding to TLEC to expand its delivery capacity in 2007/2008 and is planning to do so in 2008/2009 and beyond as the need can be justified. As TLEC extends it support to the EFN community administration in the future, it is expected that the EFN community level capacity to respond to Reserve creation demands will increase with positive results.
Manitoba continues to refine and expand its statistical monitoring of Reserve creation, essential to technical tracking of the process and measurement of performance for all Parties. Supported by a strong Ministerial level mandate, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Affairs have increased its staff and First Nation consultation capacities in 2007/2008. Efforts at improved communications and orientation have been reflected in active participation in focus meetings on specific issues, tasks and referrals to the IMC. Manitoba continues to recognize the need for a constant review and re-examination of provincial administration of the MFA, which has included a restatement of the process for review of Selections and Acquisitions around the concept of “eligibility” of those parcels to be set apart as Reserve under the MFA.
Canada accepts its primary role in the overall exercise in support of the lead initiative of the TLEC. Certainly, the achievement of the first year target of setting aside of 150,000 acres of land as Reserve (inclusive of all TLE EFNs, not only those under the MFA) was a notable accomplishment during 2007. All Parties must continue to cooperate in the strategic planning exercises essential to the accomplishment of this target again by August 2008 and beyond.
The IMC office as the new element in the implementation of the MFA can be expected to assume a more general role in relation to the facilitation of implementation this next fiscal year. The Parties have responded positively to its emphasis on increased communications, specific discussions on key implementation practices, organization of the process
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
45
for formal referral of issues and matters in dispute, the conduct of neutral focus meetings and other discussions on issues, tasks or matters arising during implementation requiring independent perspective.
Regardless, however, the tougher challenges lay ahead. It is evident that disputes unresolved for years must be resolved, for example, the requirement for a form of Hydro Easement, that more emphasis on priorities identified by certain EFNs may be required to ensure that they also secure the benefits of Reserve creation, that continuous cooperation among the Parties,
including a more active role for the EFNs is required to attain the overall target 150,000 acres of Reserve each year, and that strategic planning at all levels is the key to successful implementation of the MFA. Ultimately, the IMC recognizes and acknowledges that it is the improved social, cultural and economic conditions and potential of the individual EFNs that is of greatest importance, the underlying objective of the successful implementation of the MFA, not the achievement of arbitrary “targets” of acres of Reserve creation each year. It is that objective that must sustain IMC efforts over the years ahead.
On behalf of the Implementation Monitoring Committee established under Section 34.01 of the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty Land Entitlement, I herewith respectfully submit this the Annual Report of the IMC to the President of the TLE Committee, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs for Manitoba, as of March 31, 2008.
__________________________James R. McLeod
Chairperson
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
46 47
Appendix A - MFA Entitlement First Nations Map
Appendix B - Draft List of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute
Appendix C - Protocol for the Referral and Review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute
Appendix D - Draft List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute not resolved
Appendix E - Definitions used in the 2007/2008 IMC Annual Report
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
47
MFA Entitlement First Nations Map
49
Lake
Winnipeg
LakeManitoba
Cedar Lake
Lake
Winnipegosis
Southern IndianLake
Gods
Lake
Northlands Sayisi Dene
Barren Lands
Marcel Colomb CreeFox Lake
Shamattawa
O-Pipon-Na-Piwin
Mathias Colomb Cree Nisichawayasihk CreeYork Factory
War Lake
God's Lake
Manto Sipi CreeBunibonibee Cree
Norway House CreeOpaskwayak Cree
Sapotaweyak Cree
Wuskwi Sipihk
Rolling River Brokenhead Ojibway
Buffalo Point
Adhesions to Treaty 5 1908-1910
Treaty 5 1875
Treaty 1 1871
Treaty 2 1871
Treaty 31873
Treaty 41874
Location of EntitlementFirst Nations1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement onTreaty Land Entitlement
50 0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers
Entitlement First Nations that havesigned a Treaty Entitlement Agreement(shown in red text)Entitlement First Nations that have notsigned a Treaty Entitlement Agreement(shown in green text)
As of March 31, 2008
49
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
49
Draft List of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute
51
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-1
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
1999-B
PF
N-0
02
Buff
alo
Poin
tF
irst
Natio
n
RE
:R
eed
Riv
er
Sele
ctio
n
6/2
3/1
99
91.0
1(6
2),
1.0
1(6
5),
6.0
2(8
),
12.0
1,
12.0
2
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,D
efined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Navig
able
Wate
rway,
Ord
inary
Hig
hW
ate
rM
ark
;W
ate
rIn
tere
sts,
Sele
ctio
nor
Acq
uis
ition
of
Non-n
avig
able
Wate
rwa
ys,R
eserv
eB
oundaries
on
Navig
able
Wate
rways
ISS
UE
:Is
the
Reed
Riv
er
anavig
able
wate
rwa
yO
Ris
bed
of
Re
ed
Riv
er
elig
ible
for
transf
er?
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nD
ece
mber
21
,1999,
Man
itoba
advis
ed
the
Buff
alo
Po
intF
irst
Na
tion
(BP
FN
)th
at
their
Reed
Riv
er
Sele
ctio
nw
as
ad
jace
ntto
aN
avi
gable
Wate
rway
and
as
such
the
bed
of
Reed
Riv
er
belo
wth
eO
rdin
ary
Hig
hW
ate
rM
ark
was
inelig
ible
for
Sele
ctio
nun
der
Pa
ragra
ph
12.0
2(b
).O
nJu
ne
23,1999,B
PF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
ma
tter
toth
eIM
Cunder
Subse
ctio
n6
.02(8
)re
gard
ing
the
quest
ion
of
whe
ther
the
Reed
Riv
er
was
aN
avig
able
Wate
rwa
y.
Letter
from
Man
itoba
advi
sing
the
BP
FN
tha
tth
eR
eed
Riv
er
isa
Navig
able
Wate
rwa
yand
bed
notavaila
ble
for
sele
ctio
nfo
rR
ese
rve.
The
aff
ect
ed
pro
pert
y(f
orm
erly
kno
wn
as
Gould
’sP
oin
t)w
as
setapart
as
Rese
rve
on
Marc
h14,2
005.
1999-R
RF
N-0
04
Rolli
ng
Riv
er
First
Natio
n
RE
:C
ert
ain
Sele
ctio
ns
9/1
9/1
99
91.0
1(1
05),
3.1
1,
6.0
2(7
)
13.0
5
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,D
efined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Undevelo
ped
Road
Allo
wance
;P
rinci
ple
sfo
rLand
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
,R
efe
rence
of
Ma
tters
toth
eIm
ple
menta
tion
Mon
itoring
Co
mm
ittee;
Land
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
Pro
cess
,P
roce
ssfo
rLa
nd
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
;R
oads,
Hig
hw
ays
and
Airp
ort
s,U
ndevelo
ped
Road
Allo
wance
s
ISS
UE
:T
he
Rolli
ng
Riv
er
First
Natio
n(R
RF
N)
alle
ged
that
Man
itoba
identif
ied
an
Un
deve
loped
Road
Allo
wance
aff
ect
ing
cert
ain
Sele
ctio
ns
aco
nsi
dera
ble
time
aft
er
Man
itoba
resp
onded
toth
eR
RF
Nth
atth
eS
ele
ctio
ns
we
reelig
ible
for
Sele
ctio
nund
er
Subse
ctio
n6.0
2(7
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nS
epte
mber
19,2001,th
eR
RF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
matte
rto
the
IMC
under
Sect
ion
3.1
1.
Docu
men
tsre
ferr
ed
toin
the
RR
FN
Le
tter
toth
eIM
Con
Septe
mber
19,
2001,su
ch
as
the
June
14,2000
resp
onse
toth
eR
RF
Nfr
om
Man
itoba
.
The
sele
ctio
ns,
inclu
din
gth
eU
ndevelo
ped
Road
RO
Ww
ere
setapart
as
Rese
rve
May
9,2005.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-2
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
1999-M
CC
N-0
05
Ma
thia
sC
olo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:N
on
transf
er
of
Federa
lP
aym
en
tto
MC
CN
TLE
Tru
st
11/2
9/1
999
18.0
1,
36.0
1,
40.2
0(4
)
Federa
lPaym
ent,
Paym
en
tof
Federa
lP
aym
en
t;M
ate
rial
Failu
reand
Events
of
Defa
ult,
Mate
rialF
ailu
reto
Co
mply
with
Fundam
en
talT
erm
or
Conditi
on
;M
isce
llaneous
Pro
vis
ions,
Eff
ect
of
Am
alg
am
atio
nand
Cre
atio
nof
First
Natio
ns
ISS
UE
:O
nA
ugust
4,19
99,C
anada
advis
ed
the
Math
ias
Colo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n(M
CC
N)
tha
tth
eco
nditi
ons
inS
ubse
ctio
n40.2
0(4
)had
tobe
satis
fied,in
additi
on
toth
eco
nditi
on
pre
cedentse
tin
Sect
ion
30
.02,prior
toth
epart
ies
exe
cutin
ga
TE
Aw
ithM
CC
Nand
more
pre
cise
ly,prior
toC
anada
exe
cutin
gth
atagre
em
en
t.O
nN
ovem
ber
29,199
9,
the
MC
CN
refe
rred
thatm
atter
toth
eIM
Calle
gin
gth
atC
anada
had
mate
ria
llyfa
iled
toco
mply
with
afu
ndam
enta
lconditi
on
ofb
oth
the
MF
Aand
the
TE
Aby
exe
cutin
gth
eT
EA
on
April1
5,1999
but
not
transf
err
ing
the
Federa
lPaym
en
tto
the
MC
CN
TLE
Tru
st.
The
MC
CN
als
oa
lleged
thatC
anada
behaved
inan
inappro
priate
manner
by
creatin
gth
eM
arc
elC
olo
mb
First
Nation
duri
ng
the
exe
cutio
nphase
ofth
eT
EA
,a
sw
ell
as
overt
urn
ing
the
ele
ctio
nof
all
counci
lors
inJu
ly,1
999.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:D
iscu
ssio
ns
betw
een
the
MC
CN
and
the
Marc
elC
olo
mb
FirstN
atio
no
ccurr
ed
regard
ing
the
allo
catio
nof
the
TLE
ass
ets
until
Septe
mber
27,2000
when
the
MC
CN
refe
rred
the
matter
ofallo
catio
nto
the
IMC
.
The
matter
was
reso
lved
by
the
Med
iate
dS
ettle
men
tA
gre
em
entdate
dM
arc
h24
th,2003.P
urs
uantto
the
Med
iate
dS
ettle
men
tA
gre
em
ent,
the
MC
CN
signed
ane
wT
EA
on
Oct
ober
1,2003
,
2000-
MC
CN
-0
02,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004,
2002-
MC
CN
/T
LE
C-
001
2000-C
AN
AD
A-
001
Canada
/T
LE
C
RE
:G
ST
Re
mis
sio
nO
rder
3/1
0/2
00
036.0
1,
37.0
1
Mate
rialF
ailu
reand
Events
of
Defa
ult,
Mate
rialF
ailu
reto
Com
ply
with
Fundam
en
talT
erm
or
Conditi
on
;T
axa
tion,
Goods
and
Serv
ices
Tax
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
11
,2000,C
anada
rece
ived
anotic
efr
om
TLE
Cin
acc
ord
ance
with
Subse
ctio
n36.0
1(1
)alle
gin
ga
ma
terialf
ailu
reto
com
ply
with
afu
ndam
enta
lterm
or
con
diti
on
ofth
eM
FA
.O
nM
arc
h10
,2000,C
anada
refe
rred
the
ma
tter
toth
eIM
Cin
acc
ord
ance
with
Para
gra
ph
36.0
1(2
)(b
).T
he
TLE
Casse
rted
that
Canada
had
faile
dto
com
ply
with
Sectio
n37.0
1in
faili
ng
tois
sue
the
GS
TR
em
issi
on
Ord
er.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:B
arr
yE
ffle
rw
as
appoin
ted
as
adju
dic
ato
rfo
rth
eb
indin
garb
itratio
n.
Acopy
of
the
Re
mis
sion
Ord
er
(P.C
.2000-1
767).
On
Dece
mber
13
,2000,
Canada
issu
ed
the
GS
TR
em
issi
on
Ord
er
(P.C
.2000-1
767)
toth
eT
LE
Cand
aC
onse
ntA
ward
was
signed
Dece
mber
28
th,2001
by
the
ad
judic
ato
r.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-3
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2000-M
CC
N-0
02
Ma
thia
sC
olo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n/
Marc
elC
olo
mb
First
Natio
n
RE
:A
lloca
tion
of
TLA
and
Federa
lP
aym
en
tsbetw
een
MC
CN
and
MC
FN
9/2
7/2
00
01.0
1(2
3),
40.2
0
Definiti
on
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,D
efined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Date
of
Exe
cutio
n;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions,
Eff
ect
of
Am
alg
am
atio
nand
Cre
atio
nof
First
Natio
ns
ISS
UE
:O
nS
epte
mbe
r2
7,2000,th
eM
ath
ias
Colo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n(M
CC
N)
request
ed
the
ass
ista
nce
of
the
IMC
inre
solv
ing
the
quest
ion
conce
rnin
gth
eallo
catio
nof
the
TLA
and
Federa
lpaym
en
tsbetw
een
the
MC
CN
and
the
ne
wM
arc
el
Colo
mb
First
Na
tion
(MC
FN
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nN
ovem
ber
15,2000
,th
eT
AR
RC
entr
ew
as
appoin
ted
by
the
IMC
as
an
independ
ent
fact
finder
toid
en
tify
rele
vantdate
sand
popula
tions
of
the
respect
ive
EF
Ns.
The
part
ies
agre
ed
toth
efa
ctfinder’s
report
date
dD
ecem
ber
4,2000
,on
the
reco
mm
ended
allo
catio
no
fth
eT
LA
and
Federa
lP
aym
ents
be
tween
the
MC
CN
and
the
MC
FN
.
On
August
23,200
1,th
eM
CC
Nw
ithdre
wits
refe
rence
toth
eIM
Cin
regard
sto
the
reso
lutio
nof
the
allo
catio
nof
TLE
asse
tsbetw
een
MC
CN
and
MC
FN
.
1999-
MC
CN
-0
05,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004,
2002-
MC
CN
/T
LE
C-
001
2001-R
RF
N-0
01
Rolli
ng
Riv
er
First
Natio
n
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
3/2
6/2
00
14.0
2,
4.0
2(1
)
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,E
xtensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nM
arc
h26,20
01,th
eR
olli
ng
Riv
er
First
Na
tion
(RR
FN
)re
queste
dan
ext
ensio
nof
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
nperiod
un
der
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
RR
FN
alle
ged
itw
as
unable
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nd
ue
toe
xtended
dis
cuss
ions
with
Manito
ba
regard
ing
the
elig
ibili
tyof
their
Sele
ctio
ns.
After
the
settin
gapart
as
Rese
rve
ofth
eS
ele
ctio
nat
issue
infile
1999-R
RF
N,th
eR
RF
Nw
ould
have
only
5.7
acr
es
of
itsC
row
nLa
nd
Am
ountto
Sele
ct.
Pla
nfr
om
RR
FN
,Letter
from
IMC
toR
RF
Nre
the
IMC
’sdeci
sion
on
the
RR
FN
’sext
ensi
on
request
.D
eci
sion
of
the
IMC
isno
ton
file
.
No
furt
he
ra
ctio
nre
quired,
file
close
d.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-4
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2001-N
CN
-002
Nis
icha
wa
yasi
hk
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
7/1
8/2
00
14.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(2
),
4.0
2(4
),
4.0
2(6
)
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nJu
ly1
8,2001
,th
eN
isic
ha
waya
sih
kC
ree
Na
tion
(NC
N)
reque
sted
an
exte
nsi
on
of
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
nperiod
un
der
Subse
ctio
ns
4.0
2(2
)and
4.0
2(6
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
NC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
unable
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
ndue
toth
efa
ilure
ofC
anada
and
Ma
nito
ba
tofu
lfill
the
irre
spect
ive
oblig
atio
ns
un
der
the
MF
A.
IMC
rece
ived
resp
onse
sfr
om
Canada
and
Man
itoba
and
agre
ed
toa
land
sele
ctio
ne
xtensio
nunde
r4.0
2(3
)atm
ee
ting
on
Se
pte
mber
20,2001.
On
Novem
ber
2,2001,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
itw
ould
be
more
appro
priate
toco
nsid
er
the
Pe
riod
of
Sele
ctio
npurs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n4
.02(4
).
Resp
onse
letter
from
the
IMC
toth
eN
CN
’sle
tter
date
dJu
ly4
,2003;in
whic
ha
furt
her
ext
ensi
on
tillJ
une
11
,2004
was
requeste
d.
(January
19,2004
mee
ting
note
sin
dic
ate
thatth
eIM
CC
hairpers
on
was
tose
nd
resp
onse
statin
gth
ata
llC
row
nla
nd
has
been
sele
cted
and
there
fore
the
ext
ensi
on
isnot
nece
ssary
.)
On
January
31,2002
,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
toe
xtend
the
Pe
riod
of
Sele
ctio
nfo
rth
eN
CN
for
up
totw
oadditi
ona
l1
year
periods
toJu
ly30
,2003
purs
uantto
Su
bse
ctio
ns
4.0
2(4
)to
acc
om
moda
teth
ecr
eatio
nof
O-P
ipon-N
a-P
iwin
(So
uth
India
nLake
)co
nditi
onal
upon
the
NC
Nsu
bm
ittin
ga
deta
iled
pla
nofth
ere
main
der
ofits
Cro
wn
Land
Am
ountw
ithin
120
days
.O
nM
ay
10
,2002
(revis
ed
Se
pte
mber
13,2003),
the
NC
Nsu
bm
itted
ap
lan
toth
eIM
C.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-5
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2001-S
CN
-003
Sapota
weya
kC
ree
Natio
n
RE
:E
xten
sion
of
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nT
ime
Period
8/1
6/2
00
14.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(6
),
4.0
2(7
)
Periods
of
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,E
xtensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nA
ugust16,2
001,th
eS
apota
weya
kC
ree
Natio
n(S
CN
)re
quest
ed
an
ext
ensio
nof
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
np
eriod
under
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
SC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
unable
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
ndue
toth
efa
ilure
of
Canada
tofu
lfill
itsoblig
atio
ns
under
the
MF
A,in
part
icula
r,th
eS
CN
advis
ed
tha
tth
eD
aw
son
Bay
Se
lect
ion
had
been
reje
cted
by
Canada’s
Additi
ons
toR
ese
rve
Com
mitt
ee.
Letter
date
dF
ebru
ary
1,2002
from
the
IMC
toS
CN
reth
eir
request
for
ext
ensi
on
of
period
refe
rred
toin
Marc
h14,
2002
letter
from
Ca
nada
toth
eIM
C.
(NO
TE
:T
his
may
be
the
January
31,2002
letter
from
IMC
.)
On
Novem
ber
2,2001,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
togra
nta
reaso
nable
ext
ensio
nto
the
Period
of
Sele
ctio
nfo
rth
eS
CN
purs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n4
.02(6
)and
(7).
On
January
31
,2002
,th
eIM
Cin
form
ed
the
SC
Nof
itsdeci
sio
n.
2002-
SC
N-0
08
2001-C
AN
AD
A-
004
Canada
/M
ath
ias
Colo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:D
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nof
MC
CN
TE
A
8/3
0/2
00
11.0
1(2
3),
30.0
3
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,D
efined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Date
of
Exe
cutio
n;
Com
ing
into
Forc
e,
Effe
ctiv
eD
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nof
Agre
em
ent
ISS
UE
:O
nS
epte
mber
19,2001,C
anada
requeste
dth
eass
ista
nce
of
the
IMC
inre
solv
ing
the
quest
ion
conce
rnin
gth
eD
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nof
the
Ma
thia
sC
olo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n’s
(MC
CN
)T
EA
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nA
ugust
4,1999,C
anada
advis
ed
the
MC
CN
,th
at
the
conditio
ns
inS
ubse
ctio
n40.2
0(4
)had
tobe
satis
fied,in
additi
on
toth
eco
nditi
on
pre
cede
ntsetin
Sect
ion
30.0
2,p
rior
toth
epart
ies
exe
cutin
ga
TE
Aw
ithM
CC
Nand
more
pre
cise
ly,prior
toC
anad
aexe
cutin
gth
ata
gre
em
ent.
On
Ma
y1
5,2002
,th
eis
sue
was
refe
rred
toth
eS
AC
purs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n3
4.0
9(8
)and
on
July
25
,2002,th
eS
AC
refe
rred
the
matter
back
toth
eIM
Cpurs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n3
4.1
0(6
).In
Septe
mber,
2002,th
eIM
Cappo
inte
dLa
wrie
Chern
iack
as
adju
dic
ato
rfo
rm
edia
tion
.
Resolv
ed
concu
rrentw
ithth
eR
ela
ted
Refe
rral2
002
MC
CN
/TLE
C-
001.
1999-
MC
CN
-0
05,
200
0-
MC
CN
-0
02,
2002-
MC
CN
/T
LE
C-
001
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-6
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2001-N
HC
N-0
05
Norw
ay
House
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
10/2
9/2
00
14.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
of
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nO
ctober
29
,2001,th
eN
orw
ay
House
Cre
eN
atio
n(N
HC
N)
request
ed
an
ext
ensio
nofits
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
np
eriod.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
NH
CN
did
notpro
vid
ea
reaso
nfo
rits
inabili
tyto
Sele
ctw
ithin
the
Pe
riod
of
Sele
ctio
n.
On
Febru
ary
1,2002,
the
IMC
deci
de
dand
info
rmed
the
NH
CN
thatra
ther
than
addre
ssin
gth
ere
quest
under
4.0
2(1
),C
anada
and
Manito
ba
have
agre
ed
toco
nsi
der
refe
rrin
gm
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).If
Canada
or
Manito
ba
refe
rth
em
atter
under
4.0
2(3
),th
en
NH
CN
needs
todevelo
pand
subm
ita
pla
nas
per
4.0
2(4
).O
nF
ebru
ary
8,20
02,
Man
itoba
refe
rred
the
matter
under
4.0
2(3
).
Refe
rral2
001-N
HC
N-0
05
was
repla
ced
by
Refe
rral
2002
-Manito
ba-0
06.
2002-
Man
itob
a-0
06
2002-
MC
CN
/TL
EC
-001
Ma
thia
sC
olo
mb
Cre
eN
atio
n/
TLE
C
RE
:D
ate
of
Exe
cution
of
MC
CN
TE
A
1/1
6/2
00
21.0
1(2
3),
30.0
3,
40.2
0(4
)
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,D
efined
Word
sand
phra
ses;
Date
ofE
xecu
tion;
Co
min
gin
toF
orc
e,
Eff
ect
ive
Date
of
Tre
aty
En
title
men
tA
gre
em
ent;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions,E
ffect
of
Am
alg
am
atio
nand
Cre
atio
nof
First
Natio
ns
ISS
UE
:O
nJa
nuary
16
,2002,th
eM
CC
Nand
TLE
Cre
quest
ed
the
ass
ista
nce
of
the
IMC
inre
solv
ing
the
quest
ion
conce
rnin
gth
eD
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nof
the
MC
CN
’sT
EA
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nM
ay
15
,2002
,th
eis
sue
wa
sre
ferr
ed
toth
eS
AC
purs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n34.0
9(8
)an
don
July
25
,2002,th
eS
AC
refe
rred
the
ma
tter
back
toth
eIM
Cpurs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n34.1
0(6
).In
Septe
mber,
2002,th
eIM
Cappo
inte
dLaw
rie
Chern
iack
as
adju
dic
ato
rfo
rm
edia
tion.
The
TLA
and
Federa
lP
aym
en
ta
lloca
tion
ma
tter
was
reso
lved
by
the
Med
iate
dS
ettle
men
tA
gre
em
entdate
dM
arc
h24
th,2
003.P
urs
uantto
the
Med
iate
dS
ettle
men
tA
gre
em
ent,
the
MC
CN
signed
ane
wT
EA
on
Oct
ober
1,2003
.
1999-
MC
CN
-005,
2000-
MC
CN
-002,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-7
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2002-B
CN
-002
Bunib
onib
ee
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:E
xten
sion
of
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nT
ime
Period
1/2
8/2
00
24.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
of
Sele
ctio
na
nd
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,E
xte
nsi
on
of
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nJa
nuary
28
,2002,th
eB
unib
on
ibee
Cre
eN
atio
n(B
CN
)re
quest
ed
an
ext
ensio
nof
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
np
eriod
under
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
BC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
unable
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nbecause
the
BC
Ndid
nothave
suff
icie
nttim
eto
confirm
Se
lect
ions
inth
ea
mountof
itsC
row
nLand
Am
ountth
atsa
tisfied
Sele
ctio
nobje
ctiv
es
est
ablis
hed
by
the
me
mb
ers
ofth
eB
CN
.
On
Janua
ry31
,2
002
,th
eIM
Cdis
cussed
the
ma
tter
and
agre
ed
thatit
wou
ldbe
pre
fera
ble
ifM
an
itoba
or
Cana
da
refe
rre
dth
em
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).B
CN
was
advis
ed
by
lett
er
date
dJanuary
31
,2
00
2.
IMC
furt
her
advis
es
that
itco
uld
then
ext
end
the
Peri
od
of
Se
lection
purs
uant
toS
ubsection
4.0
2(4
).M
an
itob
are
ferr
ed
the
matte
run
de
r4.0
2(3
)o
nF
ebru
ary
8,
20
02
.R
efe
rral20
02
-BC
N-0
02
wa
sre
pla
ce
db
yR
efe
rral20
02-
Man
itob
a-0
04.
2002
-M
AN
ITO
BA
-004
2002-O
CN
-003
Opask
wa
yak
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:E
xten
sion
of
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nT
ime
Period
1/3
1/2
00
24.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
of
Sele
ctio
na
nd
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,E
xte
nsi
on
of
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nJa
nuary
31
,2002,th
eO
pask
wa
yak
Cre
eN
atio
n(O
CN
)re
quest
ed
an
ext
ensio
nof
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
np
eriod
under
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
OC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
unable
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
ndue
toth
ela
ck
of
suita
ble
Cro
wn
Land
with
inre
asonable
pro
xim
ity
that
me
tth
ere
quirem
en
tsse
tout
inth
eM
FA
and
the
OC
N’s
ow
ncr
iteria
for
Sele
ctio
n.
On
Janua
ry31
,2
002
,th
eIM
Cdis
cussed
the
ma
tter
and
agre
ed
thatit
wou
ldbe
pre
fera
ble
ifM
an
itoba
or
Cana
da
refe
rre
dth
em
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).O
CN
was
advis
ed
by
lett
er
date
dJanuary
31
,2
00
2.
IMC
furt
her
advis
es
that
itco
uld
then
ext
end
the
Peri
od
of
Se
lection
purs
uant
toS
ubsection
4.0
2(4
).M
an
itob
are
ferr
ed
the
matte
run
de
r4.0
2(3
)o
nF
ebru
ary
8,
20
02
.R
efe
rral20
02
-OC
N-0
03
wa
sre
pla
ce
db
yR
efe
rral20
02-
Man
itob
a-0
05.
2002
-M
AN
ITO
BA
-005
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-8
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
04
Bunib
onib
ee
Cre
eN
atio
n/
Man
itoba
RE
:E
xten
sion
of
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nT
ime
Period
8/2
/2002
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
of
Sele
ctio
na
nd
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,E
xte
nsi
on
of
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
8,2002,in
resp
onse
toa
request
from
Bun
ibonib
ee
Cre
eN
atio
n(B
CN
)fo
ran
ext
ensio
nto
the
irla
nd
sele
ctio
nperiod
,M
anito
ba
refe
rred
the
matter
toth
eIM
Cun
der
sect
ion
4.0
2(3
)ofth
eM
FA
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
sele
ctio
nperiod
was
toexp
ire
on
Febru
ary
17,2
002,and
as
of
Febru
ary
8,
2002
Manito
ba
advis
ed
thatB
CN
had
only
sele
cted
1,2
77.3
1acre
sand
34
,156.6
9acr
es
were
yetto
be
sele
cted.
Ple
ase
refe
rto
Refe
rral2
002-B
CN
-002
for
additi
onald
eta
il.
Letter
refe
rred
toin
Fa
xdate
dM
arc
h1
8,2002
toIN
AC
from
the
IMC
Chairpers
on.
(Adra
ftle
tter
INA
Cw
as
tosend
toB
CN
,N
HC
Nand
OC
Nb
yM
arc
h5,
2002.)
Febru
ary
6,2
003
letter
from
IMC
toB
CN
.
On
Marc
h1,2002,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
toext
end
the
Period
ofS
ele
ctio
nfo
rth
eB
CN
for
one
year
toF
ebru
ary
17,2003
purs
uant
toS
ubse
ctio
n4.0
2(4
)up
on
conditi
on
thatth
eB
CN
develo
pa
deta
iled
pla
nfo
rth
eS
ele
ctio
nofth
ere
main
der
of
itsC
row
nLand
Am
ount
with
in12
0days
.O
nM
arc
h21,200
2,
the
IMC
info
rmed
the
BC
Nof
itsdeci
sion
.O
nA
pri
l23,
2002,th
eB
CN
sub
mitt
ed
apla
nto
the
IMC
and
atth
ere
quest
of
the
IMC
;th
eB
CN
sub
mitt
ed
am
ore
deta
iled
pla
non
Ma
y29
,2002
toth
eIM
C.
On
June
25,2002
IMC
ack
now
ledged
rece
iptan
dco
nfirm
ed
the
ext
ensi
on
till
Febru
ary
17,2003
.In
the
IMC
Febru
ary
17,2003
mee
ting
min
ute
s,a
seco
nd
one
year
ext
ensi
on
isdis
cuss
ed
alo
ng
with
aF
ebru
ary
6,2003
letter
from
IMC
toB
CN
.IM
Cdeci
des
toe
xten
dfo
rone
additi
onalye
ar
toF
ebru
ary
17,2004.
2002-
BC
N-
002
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-9
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ack
gro
un
dM
issin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
05
Opask
waya
kC
ree
Natio
n/
Man
itoba
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
8/2
/20
02
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,E
xtensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
8,200
2,in
consi
dera
tion
of
are
quest
from
OC
N,
Manitoba
confirm
ed
itsvie
wth
at
the
Opask
wa
yak
Cre
eN
atio
n(O
CN
)had
not
Sele
cted
itsC
row
nLand
Am
ountw
ithin
the
Period
of
Sele
ctio
nse
tou
tin
Sectio
n4.0
2,and
refe
rred
the
ma
tter
as
per
4.0
2(3
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nJa
nuary
31,2
002,th
eO
pask
wa
yak
Cre
eN
atio
n(O
CN
)re
que
sted
an
ext
ensi
on
ofits
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nperiod
und
er
Subse
ctio
n4
.02(1
).T
he
OC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
un
able
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nd
ue
toth
ela
ckof
suita
ble
Cro
wn
Land
with
inre
aso
nable
pro
xim
ity
thatm
etth
ere
quirem
en
tsse
toutin
the
MF
Aand
the
OC
N’s
ow
ncr
iteria
for
Sele
ctio
n.
Letter
refe
rred
toin
Fa
xd
ate
dM
arc
h18
,2002
toIN
AC
from
the
IMC
Chairpers
on.
(Adra
ftle
tter
INA
Cw
as
tose
nd
toB
CN
,N
HC
N,
and
OC
Nby
Marc
h5
,2
002.)
On
Marc
h2
1,2
002
IMC
advis
ed
OC
Nth
ate
xten
sio
nfo
r1
year
till
Janu
ary
22,
20
03
was
appro
ved
subje
ct
tosubm
issio
no
fa
pla
n.
On
July
22,2
002
,th
eO
CN
su
bm
itte
da
pla
nto
the
IMC
as
pe
r4.0
2(4
).
(In
the
irla
ter
letter
da
ted
Decem
ber
10,
20
03,
OC
Nre
fere
nces
the
earlie
rIM
Cdecis
ion,to
pu
tth
eir
requ
est
for
an
ext
ensio
nin
abe
yan
ceuntilt
he
outc
om
eof
the
decis
ion
on
the
elig
ibili
tyof
cert
ain
se
lections
by
Ma
nito
ba,
whic
hdecis
ion
was
no
tm
ade
untilD
ecem
ber
30,
20
02
.)O
nS
epte
mber
17,
200
2,
the
IMC
info
rmed
the
OC
Nth
atit
appe
are
dunn
ecessary
for
the
IMC
togra
ntan
ext
en
sio
nof
the
Peri
od
ofS
ele
ctio
na
tth
istim
ebeca
use
the
OC
Nh
ad
actu
ally
sele
cte
dits
Lan
dw
ithin
the
3ye
ar
perio
dpro
vid
ed
under
the
MF
A.
Ifsele
ctions
are
late
rw
ith
dra
wn,
IMC
can
co
nsid
er
ag
ain
atth
at
time
as
per
4.0
2(6
)&
(7).
2002-
OC
N-0
03
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-10
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
06
Norw
ay
House
Cre
eN
atio
n/
Man
itoba
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
8/2
/2002
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
8,2
002,M
anito
ba
inco
nsi
dera
tion
of
are
quest
from
NH
CN
,co
nfirm
ed
itsvie
wth
atth
eN
orw
ay
Ho
use
Cre
eN
atio
n(N
HC
N)
had
notse
lecte
dits
Cro
wn
Land
Am
ountw
ithin
the
Period
of
Sele
ctio
n,and
refe
rred
the
matter
toIM
Cunder
sect
ion
4.0
2(3
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:P
lease
refe
rto
Refe
rral2
001-
NH
CN
-005
for
additi
onalin
form
atio
n.
Lette
rre
ferr
ed
toin
Fa
xda
ted
Marc
h18
,2002
toIN
AC
from
the
IMC
Ch
airpers
on.
(Adra
ftle
tter
INA
Cw
as
tose
nd
toB
CN
,N
HC
N,
and
OC
Nby
Marc
h5
,2002
.)
NO
TE
:T
he
IMC
annualR
eport
for
years
endin
gM
arc
h,2002,
2003,and
2004
state
sth
atth
eN
HC
Nla
nd
sele
ctio
next
ensi
on
was
for
two
1ye
ar
periods?
On
Marc
h21,2002,th
eIM
Cw
rote
toN
HC
Nand
advi
sed
thatata
IMC
meetin
gon
Ma
rch
1,2002
itw
as
deci
ded
toext
end
the
Pe
riod
of
Sele
ctio
nfo
rN
HC
Nfo
rone
year
toN
ovem
ber
12,2002
purs
uantto
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(4
)upon
conditi
on
that
the
NH
CN
develo
pa
deta
iled
pla
nfo
rth
eS
ele
ctio
nof
the
rem
ain
der
of
itsC
row
nLand
Am
ount
with
in120
days
.O
nM
ay
10,2002,th
eN
HC
Nsu
bm
itted
apla
nto
the
IMC
.
2001-
NH
CN
-0
05
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-11
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2002-B
LF
N-0
07
Barr
en
Lands
Fir
stN
atio
n/
Canada
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
9/1
3/2
00
24.0
2(1
),
9.0
1-9
.04
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
Periods;
Land
inS
evera
lty,Land
Outs
ide
Manito
ba
and
Land
ofC
ultu
rala
nd
His
torica
lSig
nific
ance
inE
xist
ing
Pro
vin
cial
Park
s,eco
logic
al
Rese
rves,
Wild
life
Refu
ges
and
Natio
na
lP
ark
s,Land
inS
evera
lty
ISS
UE
:O
nS
epte
mber
13,2002,th
eB
arr
en
Lands
First
Natio
n(B
LF
N)
request
ed
an
ext
ensio
nof
itsC
row
nLand
Sele
ctio
nperi
od
under
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
BLF
Nalle
ged
itw
as
una
ble
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
eP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nd
ue
toC
anada’s
dela
yin
finaliz
ing
itspolic
yon
Land
inS
eve
ralty
and
ente
rin
todis
cuss
ions
with
the
BLF
Nin
thatre
gard
.
On
Oct
ob
er
23,2002
,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
thatth
eB
LF
Nw
as
gra
nte
da
one
year
ext
ensi
on
toO
cto
ber
23,
2003
for
the
purp
ose
of
allo
win
gC
anada
tofinaliz
eits
posi
tion
and
polic
yon
Land
inS
evera
lty(L
IS).
Inadditi
on
,th
atth
eB
LF
NP
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nw
ou
ldbe
ext
ended
for
an
additi
on
al
thre
eye
ar
period
aft
er
the
date
Canada
aff
irm
sits
LIS
polic
y.In
ale
tter
date
dF
ebru
ary
6,2003,
the
IMC
info
rmed
the
BLF
Nof
itsdeci
sio
n.
On
June
22,2
005
the
IMC
chairpers
on
wro
teto
BLF
Nand
advis
ed
tha
tC
ana
da
has
notco
mple
ted
itspolic
yon
LIS
and
there
fore
the
exte
nsi
on
has
notye
tco
mm
ence
d.
2004-
BLF
N-
002
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-12
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2002-S
CN
-008
Sapo
taw
eya
kC
ree
Natio
n
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
9/3
0/2
00
24.0
2,
4.0
2(1
)
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
Periods
ISS
UE
:O
nS
epte
mber
30,2002,th
eS
apota
we
yak
Cre
eN
atio
n(S
CN
)re
queste
da
seco
nd
ext
ensi
on
toits
Cro
wn
Land
Sele
ctio
nperiod
under
Subse
ctio
n4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
he
SC
Nalle
ged
itw
as
una
ble
toS
ele
ctits
land
with
inth
efir
stone
year
exte
nsi
on
toth
eir
period
of
Sele
ctio
ndue
toth
efa
ilure
of
Can
ada
tofu
lfill
itsoblig
atio
ns
un
der
the
MF
A.
Lette
rw
ithIM
C’s
resp
onse
toS
CN
reth
eir
request
for
ext
ensi
on
of
period.
On
Febru
ary
17
,2003,th
eIM
Cm
etand
deci
ded
thatit
appeare
dunnece
ssary
for
the
IMC
tog
ranta
seco
nd
ext
ensi
on
toth
eP
eriod
of
Se
lect
ion
atth
istim
e,
beca
use
the
SC
Nhad
act
ually
sele
cte
dm
ore
than
itsto
talC
row
nL
and
Am
ount
under
the
MF
A.In
2003
,th
eIM
Cin
form
ed
the
SC
No
fits
deci
sio
n.
2001-
SC
N-0
03
2003-I
MC
-003
Nort
hla
nds
First
Natio
n/IM
C/
Canada
RE
:E
xtensi
on
of
Cro
wn
Lan
dS
ele
ctio
nT
ime
Perio
d
6/2
/2003
4.0
2,
9.0
1-9
.04
Periods
ofS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
ition
of
Land,
Ext
ensio
nof
periods;
Land
inS
evera
lty,Land
Outs
ide
of
Manito
ba
and
Land
of
Cultu
ral
and
His
torica
lS
ignific
ance
inE
xist
ing
Pro
vin
cialP
ark
s,
Eco
logic
alR
ese
rves,
Wild
life
Refu
ges
and
Natio
nalP
ark
s,Land
inS
evera
lty
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
6,2
003,th
eIM
Co
ffere
dto
ext
end
the
Nort
hla
nds
Fir
stN
atio
n(N
FN
)P
eriod
of
Sele
ctio
nin
ligh
tof
the
factth
atC
ana
da
had
no
tye
tente
red
into
dis
cuss
ions
with
the
NF
N’s
me
mbers
regard
ing
the
land
inS
evera
ltyis
sue
per
Subse
ctio
n9.0
1(4
)and
(5).
This
wa
snota
form
alr
efe
rral.
Inst
ead,IM
Cdeci
ded
toext
end
the
sam
eacc
om
mo
datio
nth
athad
bee
nre
ach
ed
reB
LF
Nre
quest
for
ext
ensi
on
,giv
en
their
sim
ilar
circ
um
stance
s.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
HE
IMC
off
ere
da
one
year
ext
ensi
on
eff
ect
ive
from
Oct
obe
r2
3,2002
,and
once
Ca
nada
finaliz
ed
itsposi
tion
on
severa
ltyth
eN
FN
land
sele
ctio
nperiod
wo
uld
be
ext
ended
for
an
additi
onalt
hre
eye
ar
peri
od.
Lette
rfr
om
IMC
June
2005.
(NO
TE
:S
imila
rto
the
June
22
,200
5le
tter
toB
LF
N)
On
Oct
ob
er
23,2002
,th
eIM
Cdeci
ded
thatth
eN
FN
was
gra
nte
da
one
year
ext
ensi
on
toO
ctob
er
23,
2003
for
the
purp
ose
of
allo
win
gC
anada
tofinaliz
eits
polic
y/d
iscu
ssio
npap
er
on
Land
inS
evera
lty(L
IS);
addin
gth
atth
eN
FN
Peri
od
of
Sele
ctio
nw
ould
be
ext
ended
for
an
additi
on
al
thre
eye
ar
period
aft
er
itsLIS
Polic
y.In
ale
tter
date
dF
ebru
ary
6,2003
,th
eIM
Cin
form
ed
the
NF
Nof
itsdeci
sio
n.
2002-
BLF
N-
007
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-13
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Re
ferr
al
Da
teM
FA
Secti
on
sM
FA
Hea
din
gs
Gen
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
es
olu
tio
nO
the
rR
ela
ted
Files
2004-S
CN
-001
Sapo
taw
eya
kC
ree
Natio
n
RE
:C
once
rns
with
Canada’s
surv
ey
pra
ctic
e.
2/2
6/2
00
423.0
4C
osts
of
Environm
enta
lA
udit
and
Surv
ey
of
Land,S
urv
ey
toM
eet
Sta
ndard
s
ISS
UE
:O
nF
ebru
ary
26
,2004,th
eS
apo
taw
eya
kC
ree
Natio
n(S
CN
)re
ferr
ed
the
matter
toth
eIM
Calle
gin
gth
ate
rrors
incu
ttin
gsu
rvey
lines
on
their
Pelic
an
Rap
ids
Sele
ctio
nP
hase
1su
rve
yre
sulte
din
lost
timber
and
unw
ante
dacc
ess
toth
ela
nd
and
thatC
anada’s
surv
eyo
rdid
nota
dhere
toacc
epte
dsu
rvey
stand
ard
sin
com
ple
tion
of
the
surv
ey.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:In
Marc
h20
05,th
eIM
Cre
tain
ed
an
independentsu
rveyo
r(A
llS
ectS
urv
eys
Ltd
.)a
sa
fact
finder.
The
EF
Nsubse
quently
refr
esh
ed
the
boundaries
of
the
Sele
ctio
n.
Lette
rd
ate
dM
arc
h9
,2004
from
SC
Nto
the
IMC
refe
rence
din
letter
da
ted
Apri
l6,20
04
from
SC
Nto
IMC
.Lette
rd
ate
dM
ay
27,2
004
from
the
TLE
Cand
oth
er
docu
men
tsfr
om
the
IMC
and
SC
Nre
fere
nce
din
letter
da
ted
June
1,20
04
from
D’A
rcy
&D
eaco
nto
TLE
C.
Docu
men
tappoin
ting
fact
finder
inM
arc
h,
2005.
Oct
ober
20,2005
docu
men
tre
fere
nce
inle
tte
rdate
dO
ctober
31
,2005
from
SC
Nto
IMC
.
On
August
10,2004,th
eS
ele
ctio
nw
as
setapart
as
Reserv
e.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
HIS
TO
RIC
ISS
UE
SO
RM
AT
TE
RS
IND
ISP
UT
E
PA
GE
-14
-of
-1
4
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Rela
ted
Files
2006-R
RF
N-0
02
Rolli
ng
Riv
er
First
Natio
n
RE
:T
ransf
er
of
Adm
inis
tratio
nand
Contr
olf
rom
Man
itoba
toC
anada
2/2
7/2
00
67.0
1(2
)T
ransf
er
of
Land
and
Inte
rest
sfr
om
Man
itoba
toC
an
ada,M
an
itoba
totr
ansf
er
Cro
wn
Land
and
Inte
rest
sto
Canada
ISS
UE
:R
olli
ng
Riv
er
First
Natio
n(R
RF
N)
alle
ge
dth
at
there
isa
“regula
tory
gap”
thatocc
urs
whe
nth
ea
dm
inis
tratio
nand
contr
olo
fall
inte
rest
so
fM
anitoba
inla
nd
istr
ansf
err
ed
from
Man
itoba
toC
anada
arisi
ng
from
the
exi
sten
ceof
acontr
act
or
lien
on
title
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nF
ebru
ary
27,2006
,R
RF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
matter
toth
eIM
C.
This
issu
earo
seas
are
sult
of
am
atter
be
twee
nth
eF
irst
Na
tion
and
on
eof
itsco
ntr
act
ors
and
was
reso
lved
as
betw
een
the
m.
Confirm
atio
nof
act
ions
refe
rred
toin
the
IMC
Dra
ftM
inute
sof
Ma
y23
&24,2006/
June
1&
2,
2006,i.e
.th
eC
hairpers
on
wri
ting
toC
anada
request
ing
clarifica
tion
on
this
issu
eand
Canada’s
and
Man
itoba’s
resp
onses.
The
Cro
wn
La
nd
was
transf
err
ed
and
setap
art
as
Rese
rve
on
May
29,2
006.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
51
Protocol for the Referral and Review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute
53
Page 1 of 2
PROTOCOL FOR THE REFERRAL AND REVIEW OF AN ISSUE OR MATTERIN DISPUTE UNDER THE 1997 MANITOBA FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
ON TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS:
For the purposes of this Protocol the following short forms or definitions are used:
• “EFN” means a First Nation that has signed a TEA as defined in the MFA;• “I/M” means an issue or matter in dispute which requires resolution;• “MFA” means the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty Land
Entitlement; and• “TEA” means an agreement with an EFN signed under the MFA.
2. THE ISSUE OR MATTER IN DISPUTE:
Provide a brief, even point form statement explaining the I/M being referred to theIMC for review.
3. THE FACTS:
Set out the facts and key dates relevant to understanding of the I/M, including, asmay be applicable:
a. The parties (Canada, Manitoba and/or TLEC) and EFN involvedb. Date the I/M was first arose or was identifiedc. Identification of the parcel of land (attach a map)d. If a third party or other interest or consideration is involved, the type of interest
or consideration of concerne. If a third party or other interest or consideration is involved, the location of the
interest in/on/over the landf. All facts that directly relate to the relevant provisions of the MFA
4. INTERPRETATION OF THE MFA:
State your interpretation of the facts and how the provisions of the MFA apply to thefacts as stated giving rise to the issue or matter.
IMC IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING COMMITTEE
PROTOCOL FOR THE REFERRAL AND REVIEW OF AN ISSUE OR MATTER IN DISPUTE June 29, 2007
5. PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
State the preferred means of resolution of the I/M and summarize the optionsconsidered to deal with the I/M, if any, including:
a. The reasons for your preferred resolutionb. Any other options for resolution proposed to the other parties or EFNc. The pros and cons of each proposed option for resolution of the I/Md. Consideration of how each option for resolution may have addressed the
concerns of the other parties or EFN involvede. Comments on how each option for resolution would reflect the spirit and intent
of the MFA
6. INTERPRETATION OF THE MFA BY THE OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES:
Describe, to the best of your knowledge, the interpretation of the facts and provisionsof the MFA being advanced by the each of the other involved parties or EFN withrespect to the I/M, including:
a. Any other provisions of the MFAb. The interpretation of the MFA advanced by each other party or EFNc. The preferred method of resolution of the I/M proposed by each other party or
EFN involvedd. Any other options for resolution proposed by the other parties or EFN involved
and reasons provided by the other party for any options
7. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attach or include in the file submitted with the Referral, key background informationin chronological order wherever possible:
a. Correspondence between the parties and the EFN regarding the I/Mb. Maps and other documents useful in understanding the I/Mc. Minutes of meetings specific to the I/Md. Any other documents considered important to review by the parties and the IMC
Page 2 of 2
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
53
Draft List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute Not Resolved
55
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-1-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
1999-B
PF
N-0
01
Buff
alo
Poin
tF
irst
Natio
n
RE
:S
ele
ctio
nw
ithin
aP
rovin
cialP
ark
6/2
3/1
999
3.0
2(1
2),
3.0
3(6
),
6.0
2(8
)
Genera
lPrinci
ple
sfo
rS
ele
ctio
nand
Acquis
itio
nof
Land;S
peci
fic
Princi
ple
sfo
rS
ele
ctio
no
fC
row
nLand,Land
ina
Pro
vin
cia
lPark
,E
colo
gic
alR
eserv
e,W
ildlif
eR
efu
ge
or
Pro
pose
dN
atio
nal
Park
;P
roce
ssfo
rLand
Sele
ctio
nand
Acquis
itio
n
ISS
UE
:B
PF
Nalle
ges
thatits
Se
lect
ion
with
inB
irch
Poin
tP
rovi
nci
alP
ark
sho
uld
notbe
exc
luded
under
Su
bse
ctio
n3.0
3(6
)and
thatM
anito
ba
mis
take
nly
applie
dS
ub
sect
ion
3.0
2(1
2)
toth
eS
ele
ctio
n.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nS
epte
mber
16,1998,
Manitoba
advis
ed
the
Buff
alo
Poin
tF
irst
Na
tion
tha
tits
Sele
ctio
nw
ithin
Birch
Poin
tP
rovin
cia
lPark
wa
snote
ligib
lefo
rS
ele
ctio
nunder
Subse
ctio
n3
.03(6
)beca
use
Birch
Poin
tw
as
desi
gnate
dunder
the
Pro
vin
cia
lLands
Act
and
the
park
ison
lyth
eonly
pro
vin
cialf
aci
lity
topro
vid
eacc
ess
toth
eLake
ofth
eW
oods.
On
June
23,19
99,th
eB
PF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
matter
toIM
Cunder
Subse
ctio
n6.0
2(8
).
The
IMC
has
the
follo
win
gdocu
men
ts:Ju
ne
23,1999
letter
from
BP
FN
and
June
25
,1999
letter
from
the
IMC
butm
issi
ng
an
yoth
er
rele
vant
docu
men
ts.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008
1999-N
CN
-003
Nis
icha
waya
sihk
Cre
eN
atio
n
RE
:D
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nof
the
NC
NT
EA
8/2
5/1
999
1.0
1(2
3),
30.0
1
Definiti
on
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
Defined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Date
of
Exe
cutio
n;
Co
min
gin
toF
orc
e,
Eff
ect
ive
Date
of
Agre
em
ent
ISS
UE
:T
odete
rmin
eth
edate
ofth
eT
EA
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nA
ugust
25,1999
(NC
N)
and
June
6,
2001
(Canada),
the
matter
conce
rnin
gth
eD
ate
ofE
xecu
tion
of
the
NC
N’s
TE
Aw
as
refe
rred
toth
eIM
C.T
he
NC
Nalle
ged
thatth
eD
ate
of
Exe
cutio
nw
as
July
30
,1998
.T
his
was
the
date
tha
tw
as
typed
on
the
TE
A,and
the
date
of
the
signin
gce
rem
ony
inN
els
on
Hou
se.
All
part
ies
signed
the
EF
NT
EA
thatda
yexc
ep
ting
Canada
who
had
are
pre
senta
tive
initi
al
besi
de
the
signatu
reblo
ck.
Canada
subse
quently
sentth
eT
EA
toth
eM
inis
ter’s
off
ice
where
itw
as
signed
by
Min
iste
rS
tew
art
,w
ho
als
ohand
date
dher
signatu
reS
epte
mber
1,
1998.
The
July
30
,1998
date
isals
oth
e90th
an
niv
ers
ary
date
of
NC
Nsi
gnin
gadh
esi
on
toT
reaty
No.
5.C
anada
has
take
nth
eposi
tion
thatth
edate
of
exe
cutio
nw
as
Sept1
,1998.
On
Novem
ber
10
,1999,
aT
ech
nic
alW
ork
ing
Gro
up
meeting
was
convened
tod
iscu
ssth
eis
sue.
Opin
ions
from
the
part
y’s
legal
counse
lon
the
eff
ectiv
edate
of
the
TE
Ain
pre
para
tion
for
the
Tech
nic
alW
ork
ing
Gro
up
meetin
gsc
hedule
dfo
rN
ovem
ber
10,
1999.A
ny
docu
men
tsoth
er
than
the
August
25,1999
letter
from
NC
N,th
eS
epte
mber
9,1999
letter
form
IMC
,and
the
Ma
y4,
2000
letter
from
NC
N.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-2-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
2003-B
ON
-001
Bro
kenhead
Ojib
way
Natio
n
RE
:D
isposa
lof
Su
rplu
sR
eal
Pro
pert
yand
MF
AP
roce
ss.
1/2
3/2
003
1.0
1(8
8),
3.1
0,
3.1
0(1
)
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
Defined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Surp
lus
Federa
lland;
Pri
nci
ple
sfo
rLand
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
,S
peci
fic
Prin
ciple
sfo
rA
cquis
ition
of
Surp
lus
Federa
lLand
ISS
UE
:B
roke
nhead
Ojib
wa
yN
atio
n(B
ON
)alle
ge
dth
at
Canada
faile
dto
forw
ard
notic
eof
Surp
lus
Fede
ralL
an
d,th
eK
apyo
ng
Barr
acks
;to
the
BO
Nand
that
Canada
mis
take
nly
inte
rpre
ted
tha
tth
eM
FA
did
not
apply
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nD
ece
mber
4,200
2,C
anad
aadvis
ed
the
Bro
kenh
ead
Ojib
wa
yN
atio
n(B
ON
)th
atth
eK
ap
yong
Barr
ack
shad
been
desi
gnate
das
a“s
trate
gic
dis
posa
l”under
the
Tre
asu
ryB
oard
Polic
yon
the
Dis
posa
lofS
urp
lus
Real
Pro
pert
yand
that
itw
ou
ldbe
transf
err
ed
toth
eC
anada
Lands
Co
mpan
yfo
rdis
posa
l.In
additi
on
they
ad
vis
ed
that
the
MF
Adid
no
tapply
toth
est
rate
gic
dis
posa
lpro
cess
as
the
inte
rest
of
the
EF
N’s
can
notbe
consi
dere
don
apriority
basi
s.O
nJanuary
22
,20
03,th
eB
ON
refe
rred
the
matter
toth
eIM
C.
The
First
Natio
ns
of
Tre
aty
1,in
clud
ing
BO
N,
file
da
Notic
eof
Applic
atio
nin
Fe
dera
lCourt
on
January
25
,2008
.
The
IMC
has
the
follo
win
gdocu
men
ts:Letter
date
dJa
nuary
22,
2003
from
BO
Nto
IMC
,le
tte
rd
ate
dF
ebru
ary
6,2003
from
the
IMC
toth
eB
ON
,and
letter
date
dM
arc
h27,2003
from
Cana
da
toth
eIM
Cbutm
issi
ng
an
yoth
er
rele
vant
docu
men
ts.
Ma
tter
defe
rred
pendin
goutc
om
eof
litig
atio
nor
negotia
tion
as
of
Marc
h31,2008
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-3-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
2004-
BL
FN
/TL
EC
-002
Barr
en
Lands
First
Natio
n/
TLE
C
RE
:S
evera
lty
5/5
/2004
9.0
1,
9.0
2,
9.0
4,
36.0
1
Land
inS
evera
lty,Land
Outs
ide
Man
itoba
and
La
nd
Cultu
rala
nd
His
toricalS
ignific
ance
inE
xistin
gP
rovin
cialP
ark
s,E
colo
gic
al
Rese
rves,
Wild
life
Refu
ges
and
Natio
nalP
ark
s,Land
inS
evera
lty,
Ele
ctio
nby
me
mbers
,R
ightand
Sta
tus
of
Land
inS
evera
lty;
Ma
terialF
ailu
reand
Eve
nts
of
Defa
ult,
Mate
rialF
ailu
reto
Co
mp
lyw
ithF
unda
me
nta
lTerm
or
Conditi
on
ISS
UE
:B
LF
Nalle
ges
thatC
anada
had
ma
terially
faile
dto
com
ply
with
afu
ndam
enta
lterm
of
the
MF
Aand
ass
ert
ed
that
alth
oug
hits
me
mbers
ha
dgiv
en
Canada
notic
eofth
eir
ele
ctio
nto
take
Land
inS
evera
ltyin
acc
ord
ance
with
Subse
ctio
n9
.01(1
),C
anada
had
faile
dto
ente
rin
todis
cuss
ion
with
those
me
mbers
under
Subse
ctio
n9.0
1(4
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nM
ay
5,2005
,th
eB
LF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
ma
tter
toth
eIM
C.O
nJu
ne
14,2004
,T
LE
Cjo
intly
refe
rred
the
ma
tter
toIM
Cw
ithth
eB
LF
N.
On
January
2,2005
,La
wrie
Chern
iak
was
appoin
ted
as
adju
dic
ato
rfo
rth
ebin
din
garb
itratio
nre
gard
ing
the
pro
cedura
liss
ue
of
the
conduct
of
consu
ltatio
ns
conce
rnin
gth
enatu
reand
ext
ento
fth
eLand
inS
evera
ltyrigh
t.O
nJune
29,2005,
Canada
pro
vided
toth
eA
rbitr
ato
ra
listin
gof
date
sw
hen
the
yass
ert
the
yco
nduct
ed
consu
ltatio
nw
ithm
em
bers
of
the
BLF
N.O
nJu
ly18
,2006,th
ere
vis
ed
term
sof
refe
rence
for
the
bin
din
garb
itratio
nw
ere
dra
fted
by
the
TLE
Cto
acc
om
moda
tea
repre
senta
tive
mem
ber
case
stu
dy
for
purp
ose
sofconsi
de
ring
the
quest
ion
ofth
eco
ntin
ued
availa
bili
tyof
the
op
tion
toele
ctLand
inS
eve
ralty
.O
nJu
ly19,2006,
the
revie
wof
the
revis
ed
term
sof
refe
rence
was
post
poned
pendin
gappo
intm
en
tof
ane
wle
ga
lco
unse
lfor
the
BLF
Nan
dT
LE
C.
InO
ctober,
2006,
new
legalc
ounse
lw
as
appo
inte
dfo
rth
eB
LF
Nand
TLE
Cand
the
file
isno
wunder
revie
wb
yth
ene
wco
unse
l.O
nS
epte
mber
19,2005
BLF
Nre
quest
ed
Canada
’sposi
tion
on
Land
inS
eve
ralty
.A
sw
ell,
Chie
fH
alk
ett
reflect
shis
impre
ssio
nth
atC
anada
wou
ldata
min
imum
have
pro
vid
ed
are
port
(info
rmatio
n)
on
the
Ma
y2005
dis
cuss
ions
for
BLF
Nto
make
an
info
rmed
deci
sio
non
ho
wto
pro
ceed
with
arb
itratio
n.B
LF
Nass
ert
sth
at
this
info
rmatio
nis
required
todete
rmin
eif
the
mee
tings
fulfi
lled
meanin
gfu
lconsu
ltatio
n.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-4-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
2006-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
01
Bu
nib
onib
ee
Cre
eN
ation
/M
an
itoba
RE
:R
egis
tra
tion
of
an
Assig
nm
ent
for
Colla
tera
lP
urp
oses
aga
inst
ale
ase
(TP
I)on
the
Kne
eLake
Lodg
ese
lection.
2/3
/2006
6.0
2(6
),
36.0
1
Pro
cess
for
La
nd
Sele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
;M
ate
rialF
ailu
rea
nd
Events
ofD
efa
ult,
Ma
teri
alF
ailu
reto
Co
mp
lyw
ithF
undam
enta
lTerm
or
Conditi
on
ISS
UE
:B
CN
alle
ge
that
Man
itoba
bre
ach
ed
oblig
atio
ns
under
Subse
ctio
n6
.02(6
)by
pe
rmitt
ing
severa
lregis
tratio
ns
tobe
made
aga
inst
ale
ase
aff
ect
ing
the
BC
N’s
Knee
Lake
Lodge
Sele
ctio
n.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nJa
nuary
13,2006,
Manito
ba
was
giv
en
notic
eb
yth
eB
CN
inacc
ord
ance
with
Subse
ctio
n36.0
1ass
ert
ing
am
ate
rialf
ailu
reby
Manito
ba
toco
mply
with
afu
ndam
en
talt
erm
or
conditi
on
.O
nF
ebru
ary
3,2
006,
Man
itoba
refe
rred
the
matter
toth
eIM
Cin
acc
ord
ance
with
Para
gra
ph
36.0
1(2
)(b
).
Man
itoba’s
resp
onse
toth
eB
CN
’sK
nee
Lake
Lodge
Sele
ctio
n,
letter
date
dA
pril7
,2006
refe
rred
toin
letter
date
dJu
ne
28,2006
from
the
IMC
toB
CN
.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008.
2006-
BC
N/T
LE
C-0
03
Bunib
onib
ee
Cre
eN
atio
n/
Ma
nito
ba
/T
LE
C
RE
:E
ffect
of
aP
ort
age
on
aS
ele
ctio
nin
rela
tion
toM
FA
pro
vis
ions
4/7
/2006
1.0
1(2
1),
3.0
2(6
),
3.0
2(1
2),
7.0
1(2
),
36.0
1
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
Defined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Cro
wn
Rese
rvatio
ns;,
Genera
lP
rinci
ple
sfo
rS
ele
ctio
na
nd
Acq
uis
ition
ofLand
;T
ransf
er
of
Lands
and
Inte
rest
sfr
om
,M
an
itoba
toT
ransf
er
Cro
wn
Land
and
Inte
rest
sto
Canada;
Mate
ria
lF
ailu
reand
Events
ofdefa
ult,
Ma
terialF
ailu
reto
Co
mp
lyw
ithF
undam
en
talT
erm
or
Conditi
on
ISS
UE
:T
he
BC
Nalle
ge
that
Ma
nitoba
was
inco
rre
ctly
chara
cte
rizi
ng
aport
age
as
acom
peting
co
nsid
era
tion
and
as
are
sult
refu
sin
gto
transfe
ra
dm
inis
tra
tion
an
dcontr
olo
fT
routF
alls
and
Wip
anip
anis
Port
age
Sele
ctions
(both
und
er
1,0
00
acre
s)
toC
ana
da.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nD
ece
mber
23,2
002
,M
an
itob
ag
ave
notice
toth
eB
CN
of
the
exi
ste
nce
of
aport
age
acro
ss
Tro
utF
alls
and
Wip
anip
an
isP
ort
age
Se
lectio
ns
assert
ing
that
aport
age
was
a“c
om
petin
gco
nsid
era
tion”
and
there
fore
tha
tth
eS
ele
ctio
ns
were
note
ligib
leun
der
the
Princip
les.
On
Fe
bru
ary
27,
200
6,
Ma
nitoba
was
giv
en
no
tice
join
tly
by
the
BC
Na
nd
TLE
Cin
accord
ance
with
Subse
ctio
n36.0
1assert
ing
am
ate
rialfa
ilure
by
Ma
nitoba
tocom
ply
with
afu
nd
am
enta
lterm
or
conditio
n.
On
Marc
h2
2,2
006,
Man
itob
are
ferr
ed
the
matt
er
toth
eIM
Cin
accord
ance
with
Para
gra
ph
36.0
1(2
)(b
).
On
Apri
l7,2
006,
the
BC
Na
nd
TL
EC
join
tly
requ
este
dth
eIM
Cto
directth
em
atter
tob
indin
garb
itratio
nun
der
Subsectio
n36.0
1(5
).O
nF
ebru
ary
27,2
007
,M
anito
ba
se
nt
ale
tter
toth
eB
CN
todis
cuss
the
rete
ntio
nofth
eri
ght
of
pub
licaccess
toth
eS
ele
ctions’p
ort
ag
es
eith
er
by
wa
yofa
naccess
agre
em
en
to
rpo
ssib
lee
xclu
sio
nund
er
Subse
ctio
n3.0
2(1
2)
As
dir
ecte
db
yth
eIM
C.
The
IMC
off
ice
iscon
solid
atin
gth
ere
vie
wof
the
Refe
rrali
nto
the
form
atof
the
I/M
Re
ferr
alP
roto
col.
Revie
win
the
Pro
toco
lfo
rmatis
inpro
cess
,how
ever,
not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-5-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
2006-T
LE
C-0
04
IMC
/M
anitoba
RE
:C
om
pe
ting
consi
dera
tions
and
Elig
ibili
tyof
sele
ctio
ns
less
than
1,0
00
acr
es.
5/1
9/2
006
3.0
2(3
)-(7
),
3.1
1
Genera
lPrinci
ple
sfo
rS
ele
ctio
nand
Acq
uis
ition
of
Land,
Refe
rence
of
Matter
toth
eIm
ple
menta
tion
Monito
ring
Co
mm
ittee
ISS
UE
:T
he
TLE
Calle
ge
that
Manito
ba
was
inco
rrect
lych
ara
cterizi
ng
sele
ctio
ns
inelig
ible
due
tocom
pe
ting
consi
dera
tions
(e.g
.th
eco
stof
surv
ey
of
aH
ydro
Ease
ment
line
)o
nm
an
yS
ele
ctio
ns
under
1,0
00
acre
s.In
additi
on
that
Man
itoba
was
rais
ing
the
issue
aco
nsi
dera
ble
time
aft
er
itre
sponded
toth
eE
FN
sre
gard
ing
the
elig
ibili
tyof
the
Sele
ctio
ns
under
Subse
ctio
n6
.02(7
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nM
ay
19
,2006
,T
LE
Cre
ferr
ed
the
matter
toth
eIM
Cunder
Sectio
n3.1
1.
On
June
7,2007
,M
an
itoba
pro
vid
ed
an
update
of
their
Septe
mber
7,2
005
report
on
the
“Less
than
1000
acre
s”is
sue.
Atth
eIM
Cre
quest
,M
anito
ba
pro
vid
ed
are
port
item
izin
gth
e77
Sele
ctio
ns
of
less
than
1000
acr
es
thatM
an
itoba
“deem
ed
”n
otelig
ible
beca
use
of
com
pe
ting
consi
dera
tions.
Tw
ofo
cus
meetin
gs
have
been
held
tore
view
and
dis
cuss
the
vary
ing
inte
rpre
tatio
ns
and
applic
atio
ns
ofth
ere
levantM
FA
pro
vis
ions.
Inad
diti
on
adis
cuss
ion
paper
has
been
pre
pare
dby
IMC
.
Letter
date
dN
ovem
ber
18,
2004
and
letter
date
dJa
nuary
28,
2005
refe
rred
toin
TLE
C’s
lette
ro
fre
ferr
ald
ate
dM
ay
19,2006
toth
eIM
C.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008.
2007-B
PF
N-0
01
Buff
alo
Poin
tF
irst
Natio
n
RE
:P
roposed
purc
hase
of
Contr
olZ
one
lands
ad
jace
nt
PT
H#12.
3/1
5/2
007
13.0
2,
13.0
3
Roads,
Hig
hw
ays
and
Airport
s,E
xclu
sion
ofC
ert
ain
Land,W
idth
sof
Road
Rig
htofW
ay
ISS
UE
:O
nJu
ne
26
,200
6,M
an
itoba
advis
ed
the
BP
FN
tha
tam
ong
oth
er
thin
gs
Manito
ba
was
en
title
dto
aco
ntr
olz
one
tobe
exc
luded
from
the
lan
dpurc
hased
by
the
BP
FN
alo
ng
PT
HN
o.1
2.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:T
his
would
resu
ltin
the
exc
lusi
on
ofa
39.5
2m
etr
ew
ide
strip
of
land
alo
ng
PT
HN
o.1
2in
acco
rdance
with
Sect
ion
13
.03,and
Man
itoba
has
off
ere
dto
purc
hase
itfr
om
BP
FN
.O
nM
arc
h15,20
07,th
eB
PF
Nre
ferr
ed
the
matter
toth
eIM
C.
BP
FN
and
Ma
nito
ba
pre
sen
ted
their
vie
ws
atth
eIM
Cm
eetin
gon
Decem
ber
12,2007.
Nego
tiatio
ns
and
consi
dera
tion
ofoptio
ns
have
contin
ued.
Not
dete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008.
DR
AF
TL
IST
OF
CU
RR
EN
TIS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
SIN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
-6-
of
-6
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Pa
rty
/E
FN
RE
:
Refe
rral
Date
MF
AS
ecti
on
sM
FA
Head
ing
sG
en
era
lIs
su
e/B
ackg
rou
nd
Mis
sin
gD
ocu
men
tsM
ean
so
fR
eso
luti
on
Oth
er
Re
late
dF
iles
2007-T
LE
C-0
02
TLE
C/M
anito
ba
RE
:H
ydro
Ea
sem
ent
8/2
7/2
007
1.0
1(4
0),
7.0
1,
12.0
5,
12.0
7,
12.0
8,
12.0
9,
12.1
0,
38.0
1,
40.1
1
Definiti
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
Defined
Word
sand
Phra
ses,
Hyd
roE
ase
men
t;M
anito
ba
toT
ransf
er
Cro
wn
Lan
dan
dIn
tere
sts
toC
anada;W
ate
rIn
tere
sts,
Hyd
roE
ase
me
ntand
Dete
rmin
atio
nofE
ase
mentLin
e,
Land
Belo
wE
ase
mentLin
eN
otto
be
Part
of
Tota
lLand
Am
ount,
Lim
iton
Lia
bili
tyfo
rC
ert
ain
Land
tobe
Sele
cted
or
Acq
uired,Land
Phys
ically
Requ
ired
by
Man
itoba
Hyd
ro,R
iparian
Rig
hts
,;A
gre
ed
Form
s,U
seof
Agre
ed
Form
s;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions,
No
Eff
ect
on
Exi
stin
gA
borigin
alo
rT
reaty
Rig
hts
.
ISS
UE
:T
LE
Cre
ferr
ed
two
issues
with
inth
isre
ferr
al:
firs
tlyT
LE
Cis
ass
ert
ing
tha
tM
anito
ba
isnotentit
led
tore
tain
even
part
ialc
onst
itutio
nalju
risdic
tion
required
tosu
ppo
rtan
ease
men
tre
quired
by
Manito
ba
Hyd
ro;an
dse
condly
tha
tth
ehyd
roease
mentsh
ould
setouta
reso
lutio
npro
cess
where
the
EF
Ns
can
addre
ssalle
ged
impacts
on
the
EF
N’s
exi
stin
gaborigin
ala
nd
Tre
aty
rig
hts
,as
well
as
an
ypo
ten
tialcl
aim
toco
mpensa
tion
inre
spect
of
the
ease
mentare
a.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nA
ugust
27,2007,
the
TLE
Cre
ferr
ed
the
ma
tter
toth
eIM
CT
he
IMC
direct
ed
the
IMC
Chair
pers
on
toco
nso
lidate
the
sub
mis
sions
ofth
eP
art
ies
into
the
form
atof
the
pro
toco
lfor
revie
wofa
Refe
rralf
or
furt
her
dis
cuss
ion,
exp
ect
ed
inA
ugust
2008
.
No
tdete
rmin
ed
as
of
Marc
h31,2008.
2007-T
LE
C-0
03
IMC
RE
:B
ILL
32
consu
ltatio
nand
MF
Asu
bse
ctio
n40.1
2
8/2
7/2
007
10.0
2,
40.1
2
Mis
cella
ne
ous
Pro
vis
ions,
Const
itutio
nalo
rLegis
lativ
eC
hanges
ISS
UE
:T
LE
Calle
ged
tha
tM
an
itoba
faile
dto
con
sult
with
the
TLE
Cas
per
the
com
mo
nla
wdu
tyto
consu
ltand
acc
om
modate
,as
we
llas
under
Subse
ctio
n40.1
2in
regard
sto
the
intr
oduct
ion
of
Bill
32
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
:O
nA
ugust
27,2007,th
eT
LE
Cre
ferr
ed
the
matter
toth
eIM
CT
LE
Cfu
rther
ass
ert
sth
atB
ill3
2w
ould
unila
tera
llyta
keaw
ay
the
rightofth
eE
FN
sto
dete
rmin
eth
esc
ope
of
the
rights
inth
eR
ep
lace
men
tIn
tere
stu
nder
Subse
ctio
n10.0
2.
Bill
32
did
not
pro
ceed
and
die
don
the
Ord
er
Paper.
File
close
d.
Deci
sio
nm
ade
at
Ma
y14,2008
IMC
Mee
ting
.T
here
fore
wh
ileth
ism
atter
was
curr
entas
of
Marc
h31
,2008,it
isnow
reso
lved.
07-0
8 IM
C A
NN
UA
L RE
PORT
55
Definitions used in the 2007/2008 IMC Annual Report
1
DEFINITIONS USED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IMC 2007/2008
“AFC” means Agreed Forms Committee; “AIP” means Agreement in Principal; “BCN” means Bunibonibee Cree Nation; “BLFN” means Barren Lands First Nation; “BON” means Brokenhead Ojibway Nation; “BPFN” means Buffalo Point First Nation; “CAP” means Community Approval Process; “EFN” means Entitlement First Nation; “FRPFIA” means Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act; “IMC” means the Implementation Monitoring Committee; “I/M Referral Protocol” means the agreed format or “Protocol” for the referral and
review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute; “LIS” means Land In Severalty; “LSS” means the Land Selection Study; “MANA” means Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs; “MCCN” means Mathias Colomb Cree Nation; “MCFN” means Marcel Colomb First Nation; “MFA” or “Framework Agreement” means the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement
on Treaty Land Entitlement; “MNRTA” means the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement; “NCN” means Nisichawayisihk Cree Nation; “NHCN” means Norway House Cree Nation; “OCN” means Opaskwayak Cree Nation;
2
“OPCN” means O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation; “RRFN” means Rolling River First Nation; “SCN” means Sapotaweyak Cree Nation; “TEA” means a Treaty Entitlement Agreement; and, “TLEC” means the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, Inc. “TLE” means Treaty land entitlement under any Treaty in Manitoba. “TPI” means Third Party Interests; “TRELES” means Treaty Land Entitlement System; “WSCN” means Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation;
Implementation Monitoring Committee200 – 400 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, ManitobaR3C – 4K5
PH: 204 - 944-8772Fax: 204 - 944-8715
